Addressing a Core Gap in Cancer Care - The NCI Moonshot Program to Help Oncology Patients Stop Smoking

Tobacco-cannabis co-use among cancer patients and survivors: findings from 2 US cancer centers

BACKGROUND

Cannabis use is prevalent among cancer patients and survivors and may provide some therapeutic benefits for this population. However, benefits may be attenuated when cannabis is co-used with tobacco, which is associated with more severe tobacco and cannabis use and adverse outcomes in noncancer populations. We compared cannabis use, primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use among 3 groups of patients and survivors based on cigarette smoking status.

METHODS

Survey data was collected from patients and survivors with cancer (n = 1732) at 2 US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in states with varying cannabis regulatory policy. Prevalence of cannabis use (prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, before treatment, after treatment), primary mode of use, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use were assessed by cigarette smoking status (current, former, never) within and across centers using weighted bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression, controlling for demographic and clinical variables.

RESULTS

Current cigarette use was associated with greater rates of cannabis use prior to diagnosis, after diagnosis, during treatment, and after treatment within each center (all P < .001) and in pooled analyses across centers (all P < .001). Primary mode of use, knowledge of cannabis products, and therapeutic and/or nontherapeutic use also statistically differed by tobacco status and study site.

CONCLUSIONS

Results illustrate the importance of conducting assessments for both tobacco and cannabis use among cancer patients during and after cancer treatment, regardless of the cannabis regulatory environment. Given previous data indicating harms from co-use and continued tobacco use during cancer treatment, this issue introduces new priorities for cancer care delivery and research.

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.

Implementation, enrollment, and engagement in an opt-out telehealth pharmacist-assisted tobacco treatment program for patients seen in oncology outpatient clinics

OBJECTIVE

To describe the workflow, reach, cost, and self-reported quit rates for an opt-out tobacco treatment program (TTP) for patients seen in 43 oncology outpatient clinics.

METHODS

Between May 25, 2021, and December 31, 2022, adult patients (≥18 years) visiting clinics affiliated with the Medical University of South Carolina Hollings Cancer Center were screened for smoking status. Those currently smoking were referred to a telehealth pharmacy-assisted TTP. An attempt was made to contact referred patients by phone. Patients reached were offered free smoking cessation counseling and a 2-week starter kit of nicotine replacement medication. A random sample of 420 patients enrolled in the TTP were selected to participate in a telephone survey to assess smoking status 4 to 12 months after enrollment.

RESULTS

During the reference period 35,756 patients were screened and 9.3% were identified as currently smoking. Among the 3319 patients referred to the TTP at least once, 2393 (72.1%) were reached by phone, of whom 426 (12.8%) were ineligible for treatment, 458 (13.8%) opted out of treatment, and 1509 (45.5%) received treatment. More than 90% of TTP enrollees smoked daily, with an average of 13.1 cigarettes per day. Follow-up surveys were completed on 167 of 420 patients, of whom 23.4% to 33.5% reported not smoking; if all nonresponders to the survey are counted as smoking, the range of quit rates is 9.3% to 13.3%.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrate the feasibility of reaching and delivering smoking cessation treatments to patients from a diverse set of geographically dispersed oncology clinics.

Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care: integrated healthy lifestyle program to live well after cancer treatment

Northwestern University's Center for Scalable Telehealth Cancer Care (STELLAR) is 1 of 4 Cancer Moonshot Telehealth Research Centers of Excellence programs funded by the National Cancer Institute to establish an evidence base for telehealth in cancer care. STELLAR is grounded in the Institute of Medicine's vision that quality cancer care includes not only disease treatment but also promotion of long-term health and quality of life (QOL). Cigarette smoking, insufficient physical activity, and overweight and obesity often co-occur and are associated with poorer treatment response, heightened recurrence risk, decreased longevity, diminished QOL, and increased treatment cost for many cancers. These risk behaviors are prevalent in cancer survivors, but their treatment is not routinely integrated into oncology care. STELLAR aims to foster patients' long-term health and QOL by designing, implementing, and sustaining a novel telehealth treatment program for multiple risk behaviors to be integrated into standard cancer care. Telehealth delivery is evidence-based for health behavior change treatment and is well suited to overcome access and workflow barriers that can otherwise impede treatment receipt. This paper describes STELLAR's 2-arm randomized parallel group pragmatic clinical trial comparing telehealth-delivered, coach-facilitated multiple risk behavior treatment vs self-guided usual care for the outcomes of reach, effectiveness, and cost among 3000 cancer survivors who have completed curative intent treatment. This paper also discusses several challenges encountered by the STELLAR investigative team and the adaptations developed to move the research forward.

Cannabis, Tobacco Use, and COVID-19 Outcomes

Importance

It is unclear whether cannabis use is associated with adverse health outcomes in patients with COVID-19 when accounting for known risk factors, including tobacco use.

Objective

To examine whether cannabis and tobacco use are associated with adverse health outcomes from COVID-19 in the context of other known risk factors.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data from February 1, 2020, to January 31, 2022. This study included patients who were identified as having COVID-19 during at least 1 medical visit at a large academic medical center in the Midwest US.

Exposures

Current cannabis use and tobacco smoking, as documented in the medical encounter.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Health outcomes of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and all-cause mortality following COVID-19 infection. The association between substance use (cannabis and tobacco) and these COVID-19 outcomes was assessed using multivariable modeling.

Results

A total of 72 501 patients with COVID-19 were included (mean [SD] age, 48.9 [19.3] years; 43 315 [59.7%] female; 9710 [13.4%] had current smoking; 17 654 [24.4%] had former smoking; and 7060 [9.7%] had current use of cannabis). Current tobacco smoking was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.62-1.82; P < .001), ICU admission (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.34; P < .001), and all-cause mortality (OR, 1.37, 95% CI, 1.20-1.57; P < .001) after adjusting for other factors. Cannabis use was significantly associated with increased risk of hospitalization (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.68-1.93; P < .001) and ICU admission (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.41; P < .001) but not with all-cause mortality (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.82-1.14, P = .69) after adjusting for tobacco smoking, vaccination, comorbidity, diagnosis date, and demographic factors.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that cannabis use may be an independent risk factor for COVID-19-related complications, even after considering cigarette smoking, vaccination status, comorbidities, and other risk factors.

Impact of tobacco smoking on disease-specific outcomes in common neurological disorders: A scoping review

Although the association of smoking with the risk of incident neurological disorders is well established, less is known about the impact of smoking and smoking cessation on outcomes of these conditions. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize what is known about the impact of smoking and smoking cessation on disease-specific outcomes for seven common neurological disorders. We included 67 studies on the association of smoking and smoking cessation on disease-specific outcomes. For multiple sclerosis, smoking was associated with greater clinical and radiological disease progression, relapses, risk for disease-related death, cognitive decline, and mood symptoms, in addition to reduced treatment effectiveness. For stroke and transient ischemic attack, smoking was associated with greater rates of stroke recurrence, post-stroke cardiovascular outcomes, post-stroke mortality, post-stroke cognitive impairment, and functional impairment. In patients with cognitive impairment and dementia, smoking was associated with faster cognitive decline, and smoking was also associated with greater cognitive decline in Parkinson's disease, but not motor symptom worsening. Patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who smoked faced increased mortality. Last, in patients with cluster headache, smoking was associated with more frequent and longer cluster attack periods. Conversely, for multiple sclerosis and stroke, smoking cessation was associated with improved disease-specific outcomes. In summary, whereas smoking is detrimentally associated with disease-specific outcomes in common neurological conditions, there is growing evidence that smoking cessation may improve outcomes. Effective smoking cessation interventions should be leveraged in the management of common neurological disorders to improve patient outcomes.

The effect of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on smoking status, quit attempts, and receipt of cessation support among adults with cancer: Results from nine ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials

BACKGROUND

Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Predictors of Patient Engagement in Telehealth-Delivered Tobacco Cessation Treatment during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Smoking causes one in three cancer deaths and may worsen COVID-19 outcomes. Telehealth tobacco cessation treatment is offered as a covered benefit for patients at the Stanford Cancer Center. We examined predictors of engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were abstracted from the Electronic Health Record between 3/17/20 (start of pandemic shelter-in-place) and 9/20/22, including patient tobacco use, demographics, and engagement in cessation treatment. Importance of quitting tobacco was obtained for a subset (53%). During the first 2.5 years of the pandemic, 2595 patients were identified as recently using tobacco, and 1571 patients were contacted (61%). Of the 1313 patients still using tobacco (40% women, mean age 59, 66% White, 13% Hispanic), 448 (34%) enrolled in treatment. Patient engagement was greater in pandemic year 1 (42%) than in year 2 (28%) and year 3 (19%). Women (41%) engaged more than men (30%). Patients aged 36-45 (39%), 46-55 (43%), 56-65 (37%), and 66-75 (33%) engaged more than patients aged 18-35 (18%) and >75 (21%). Hispanic/Latinx patients (42%) engaged more than non-Hispanic/Latinx patients (33%). Engagement was not statistically significantly related to patient race. Perceived importance of quitting tobacco was significantly lower in pandemic year 1 than year 2 or 3. Nearly one in three cancer patients engaged in telehealth cessation treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Engagement was greater earlier in the pandemic, among women, Hispanic/Latinx individuals, and patients aged 36 to 75. Sheltering-in-place, rather than greater perceived risk, may have facilitated patient engagement in tobacco cessation treatment.

Use of electronic cigarettes among African American cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

The use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) is increasing rapidly in the United States, although the negative health outcomes associated with these products are still unknown. Emerging research has examined the use of e-cigarettes in the cancer survivor population as a whole, yet none has focused on e-cigarette use in the African American (AA) cancer survivor population.

METHODS

The authors used data from the Detroit Research on Cancer Survivors cohort study, comprised of AA adult cancer survivors. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors potentially associated with e-cigarette ever use and current use.

RESULTS

Of 4443 cancer survivors who completed a baseline interview, 8.3% (n = 370) reported ever using e-cigarettes, and 16.5% (n = 61) of those reporting ever use also reported current use of e-cigarettes. Ever users and current users were on average younger than those who did not use e-cigarettes (57.5 vs. 61.2 years; p < .001). Current cigarette smokers were >20 times more likely (odds ratio, 20.75; 95% confidence interval, 12.84-33.55) and former smokers were almost 10 times more likely (odds ratio, 9.50; 95% confidence interval, 6.03-14.97) to have ever used e-cigarettes than never-smokers. Preliminary data suggested that ever use of e-cigarettes is associated with later stage at diagnosis for breast and colorectal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

As the use of e-cigarettes increases in the general population, it is important to continue to monitor their use in cancer survivors and to gain more insight as it pertains to the AA cancer survivor population. Elucidation of the factors associated with e-cigarette use in this population may help inform comprehensive cancer survivorship recommendations and interventions.

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.

Stakeholder perceptions of using "opt-out" for tobacco use treatment in a cancer care setting: a qualitative evaluation of patients, providers, and desk staff

BACKGROUND

Continued tobacco use in cancer patients increases the risk of cancer treatment failure and decreases survival. However, currently, most cancer patients do not receive evidence-based tobacco treatment. A recently proposed "opt-out" approach would automatically refer all cancer patients who use tobacco to tobacco treatment, but its acceptability to cancer patients and providers is unknown. We aimed to understand stakeholder beliefs, concerns, and receptivity to using the "opt-out" approach for tobacco treatment referrals in a cancer care setting.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with oncology patients, providers, and desk staff. The sample size was determined when theoretical saturation was reached. Given the differences among participant roles, separate interview guides were developed. Transcripts were analyzed using standard coding techniques for qualitative data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) codebook. Emergent codes were added to the codebook to account for themes not represented by a CFIR domain. Coded transcripts were then entered into the qualitative analysis software NVivo to generate code reports for CFIR domains and emergent codes for each stakeholder group. Data were presented by stakeholder group and subcategorized by CFIR domains and emergent codes when appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 21 providers, 19 patients, and 6 desk staff were interviewed. Overall acceptance of the "opt out" approach was high among all groups. Providers overwhelmingly approved of the approach as it requires little effort from them to operate and saves clinical time. Desk staff supported the opt-out system and believed there are clinical benefits to patients receiving information about tobacco treatment. Many patients expressed support for using an opt-out approach as many smokers need assistance but may not directly ask for it. Patients also thought that providers emphasizing the benefits of stopping tobacco use to cancer treatment and survival would be an important factor motivating them to attend treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

While providers appreciated that the system required little effort on their part, patients clearly indicated that promotion of tobacco cessation treatment by their provider would be vital to enhance willingness to engage with treatment. Future implementation efforts of opt-out systems will require implementation strategies that promote provider engagement with their patients around smoking cessation while continuing to limit burden on providers.

Implementation planning for equitable tobacco treatment services: a mixed methods assessment of contextual facilitators and barriers in a large comprehensive cancer center

Tobacco use among cancer patients is associated with an increased mortality and poorer outcomes, yet two-thirds of patients continue using following diagnosis, with disproportionately higher use among racial/ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status patients. Tobacco treatment services that are effectively tailored and adapted to population characteristics and multilevel context specific to settings serving diverse patients are needed to improve tobacco cessation among cancer patients. We examined tobacco use screening and implementation needs for tobacco treatment services to inform equitable and accessible delivery within a large comprehensive cancer center in the greater Los Angeles region. We conducted a multi-modal, mixed methods assessment using electronic medical records (EMR), and clinic stakeholder surveys and interviews (guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research). Approximately 45% of patients (n = 11,827 of 26,030 total) had missing tobacco use history in their EMR. Several demographic characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, insurance) were associated with greater missing data prevalence. In surveys (n = 32), clinic stakeholders endorsed tobacco screening and cessation services, but indicated necessary improvements for screening/referral procedures. During interviews (n = 13), providers/staff reported tobacco screening was important, but level of priority differed as well as how often and who should screen. Several barriers were noted, including patients' language/cultural barriers, limited time during visits, lack of smoking cessation training, and insurance coverage. While stakeholders indicated high interest in tobacco use assessment and cessation services, EMR and interview data revealed opportunities to improve tobacco use screening across patient groups. Implementing sustainable system-level tobacco cessation programs at institutions requires leadership support, staff training, on routine screening, and intervention and referral strategies that meet patients' linguistic/cultural needs.

Development and Demonstration of Tobacco Treatment Measures for Cancer Registries: Novel Metrics for Quality Improvement

BACKGROUND

Individuals undergoing cancer treatment have better outcomes when they discontinue tobacco use. Few cancer centers systematically provide evidence-based cessation services. As part of a national quality improvement initiative [Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3i)], we collaborated with our cancer registry to develop and implement two tobacco treatment metrics for tracking the provision of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

METHODS

Post-development, the tobacco treatment metrics were integrated into the registry for all future patients. We used means and frequencies to summarize tobacco treatment for cases treated between 2017 and 2019, coinciding with the timeframe of C3i participation.

RESULTS

Of 17,735 cancer cases reviewed, both measures were captured on 17,654 (99.5%) of patients, with 3,091 (17.4%) identified as users of tobacco. Across the 3 years, 557 (18%) of individuals who used tobacco received either tobacco cessation pharmacotherapy or behavioral support; with 478 (15.5%) receiving behavioral counseling, 352 (11.4%) receiving pharmacotherapy, and 273 (8.8%) receiving both-considered gold standard care. Tobacco treatment varied substantially across cancer types. The odds of receiving gold standard care were 2.37 times greater in 2019 compared with 2017. (OR, 2.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.63-3.46; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The new metrics demonstrated high completion rates and their potential to track quality improvement efforts over time. They identified suboptimal treatment reach, but a potential increase in treatment over time and greater treatment among tobacco-related versus nontobacco-related cancers.

IMPACT

Continued tobacco use worsens cancer care outcomes. Integrating measures into cancer registries is a viable option for tracking tobacco treatment and cessation in the context of cancer care.

Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and future sustainability of an e-referral system for smoking cessation at a US NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center: lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Promoting smoking cessation is recognized as an essential part of cancer care. Moffitt Cancer Center, supported by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative, developed and implemented an opt-out-based automatic electronic health record (EHR)-mediated referral (e-referral) system for Tobacco Quitline services along with options for local group cessation support and an in-house tobacco treatment specialist. This study evaluated barriers and facilitators for implementation of the e-referral system.

METHOD

Steering committee members (N=12) responsible for developing and implementing the new clinical workflow and nurses (N=12) who were expected to use the new e-referral system completed semi-structured interviews. Qualitative thematic content analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Interviewees perceived the e-referral system as an effective strategy for identifying and referring smokers to cessation services. However, barriers were noted including competing demands and perceptions that smoking cessation was a low priority and that some patients were likely to have low motivation to quit smoking. Suggestions to improve future implementation and sustainability included providing regular trainings and e-referral outcome reports and increasing the visibility of the e-referral system within the EHR.

CONCLUSION

Initial implementation of the e-referral system was perceived as successful; however, additional implementation strategies are needed to ensure sustainability at both the clinician and system levels. Recommendations for future modifications include providing regular clinician trainings and developing a fully closed-loop system. Implications for cancer survivors Initial implementation of an e-referral system for smoking cessation for cancer patients revealed opportunities to improve the smoking cessation referral process at cancer centers.

Efficacy of smartphone applications to help cancer patients quit smoking: Protocol of the Quit2Heal randomized controlled trial

Cigarette smoking is highly prevalent among cancer patients in the United States (US), with up to half of cancer patients smoking at the time of their initial cancer diagnosis. However, evidence-based cessation programs are rarely implemented in oncology care, and smoking is not consistently treated in cancer treatment settings. Consequently, there is an urgent need for accessible and efficacious cessation treatments that are uniquely tailored to the needs of cancer patients. Here we describe the design and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the efficacy of a smartphone app (Quit2Heal) versus a US Clinical Practice Guidelines-based app (QuitGuide) for smoking cessation among a planned sample of 422 cancer patients. Quit2Heal is designed to address cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting. Quit2Heal is based on the principles of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, a behavioral therapy that teaches skills for accepting cravings to smoke without smoking, values-driven motivation to quit, and preventing relapse. The primary aim of the RCT is to determine whether Quit2Heal has significantly higher self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence at 12 months relative to QuitGuide. The trial will also determine whether Quit2Heal's effect on cessation is (1) mediated by improvements in cancer-related shame, stigma, depression, anxiety, and knowledge about the consequences of smoking/quitting; and (2) moderated by baseline factors (e.g., cancer type, stage, time since diagnosis). If successful, Quit2Heal will offer a more efficacious, broadly scalable smoking cessation treatment that could be implemented alongside existing oncology care, thereby improving cancer outcomes.

Efficacy of a Smoking Cessation Intervention for Survivors of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Cervical Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Women who smoke and have a history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) or cervical cancer represent a vulnerable subgroup at elevated risk for recurrence, poorer cancer treatment outcomes, and decreased quality of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy of Motivation And Problem Solving (MAPS), a novel treatment well-suited to meeting the smoking cessation needs of this population.

METHODS

Women who were with a history of CIN or cervical cancer, age 18 years and older, spoke English or Spanish, and reported current smoking (≥100 lifetime cigarettes plus any smoking in the past 30 days) were eligible. Participants (N = 202) were recruited in clinic in Oklahoma City and online nationally and randomly assigned to (1) standard treatment (ST) or (2) MAPS. ST consisted of repeated referrals to a tobacco cessation quitline, self-help materials, and combination nicotine replacement therapy (patch plus lozenge). MAPS comprised all ST components plus up to six proactive telephone counseling sessions over 12 months. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equations evaluated the intervention. The primary outcome was self-reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from tobacco at 18 months, with abstinence at 3, 6, and 12 months and biochemically confirmed abstinence as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant effect for MAPS over ST at 18 months (14.2% v 12.9%, P = .79). However, there was a significant condition × assessment interaction (P = .015). Follow-up analyses found that MAPS (v ST) abstinence rates were significantly greater at 12 months (26.4% v 11.9%, P = .017; estimated OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.19 to 5.89).

CONCLUSION

MAPS led to a greater than two-fold increase in smoking abstinence among survivors of CIN and cervical cancer at 12 months. At 18 months, abstinence in MAPS declined to match the control condition and the treatment effect was no longer significant.

Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

BACKGROUND

The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources.

METHODS

DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes.

RESULTS

In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8).

CONCLUSION

Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

BACKGROUND

Smoking cessation rates after stroke and transient ischemic attack are suboptimal, and smoking cessation interventions are underutilized. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions in this population.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree and used Markov models that aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, any pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling, and monetary incentives, compared with brief counseling alone in the secondary stroke prevention setting. Payer and societal costs of interventions and outcomes were modeled. The outcomes were recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death using a lifetime horizon. Estimates and variance for the base case (35% cessation), costs and effectiveness of interventions, and outcome rates were imputed from the stroke literature. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or when the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. Probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations modeled the impact of parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

From the payer perspective, varenicline and pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling were associated with more QALYs (0.67 and 1.00, respectively) at less total lifetime costs compared with brief counseling alone. Monetary incentives were associated with 0.71 more QALYs at an additional cost of $120 compared with brief counseling alone, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168/QALY. From the societal perspective, all 3 interventions provided more QALYs at less total costs compared with brief counseling alone. In 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, all 3 smoking cessation interventions were cost-effective in >89% of runs.

CONCLUSIONS

For secondary stroke prevention, it is cost-effective and potentially cost-saving to deliver smoking cessation therapy beyond brief counseling alone.

Integrating Tobacco Use Assessment and Treatment in the Oncology Setting: Quality Improvement Results from the Georgetown Lombardi Smoking Treatment and Recovery Program

As part of the NCI’s Cancer Center Cessation (C3i) initiative, we initiated, expanded, and maintained an evidence-based tobacco treatment program at the Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center. We present a quality improvement (QI) assessment of the implementation process and patient-level outcomes. At two hematology/oncology outpatient clinical sites, five oncology-based teams (clinical administrators, clinical staff, pharmacy, information technology, and tobacco treatment staff) developed implementation strategies for opt-out patient assessment and enrollment, centralized tobacco treatment, audit, feedback, and staff training. Among eligible patients (tobacco use in ≤30 days), we assessed demographic, clinical, and tobacco-related characteristics to examine predictors of enrollment (baseline completed), treatment engagement (≥one sessions completed), and self-reported 7-day abstinence (6 months post-enrollment). Across both sites, medical assistants screened 19,344 (82.4%) patients for tobacco use, which identified 1345 (7.0%) current tobacco users, in addition to 213 clinician referrals. Of the 687/1256 (54.7%) eligible patients reached, 301 (43.8%) enrolled, and 199 (29.0%) engaged in treatment, of whom 74.5% were African American and 68% were female. At the larger site, significant multivariate predictors of enrollment included African American race (vs. white/other) and clinician referral (vs. MA assessment). Treatment engagement was predicted by greater nicotine dependence, and abstinence (27.4%) was predicted by greater treatment engagement. In summary, the systematic utilization of multiple oncology-based teams and implementation strategies resulted in the development and maintenance of a high-quality, population-based approach to tobacco treatment. Importantly, these strategies addressed inequities in tobacco treatment, as the program reached and engaged a majority-African-American patient population. Finally, the opt-out patient assessment strategy has been implemented in multiple oncology settings at MedStar Health through the Commission on Cancer’s Just Ask program.

Monitoring the Implementation of Tobacco Cessation Support Tools: Using Novel Electronic Health Record Activity Metrics

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support (CDS) tools in electronic health records (EHRs) are often used as core strategies to support quality improvement programs in the clinical setting. Monitoring the impact (intended and unintended) of these tools is crucial for program evaluation and adaptation. Existing approaches for monitoring typically rely on health care providers' self-reports or direct observation of clinical workflows, which require substantial data collection efforts and are prone to reporting bias.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a novel monitoring method leveraging EHR activity data and demonstrate its use in monitoring the CDS tools implemented by a tobacco cessation program sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I).

METHODS

We developed EHR-based metrics to monitor the implementation of two CDS tools: (1) a screening alert reminding clinic staff to complete the smoking assessment and (2) a support alert prompting health care providers to discuss support and treatment options, including referral to a cessation clinic. Using EHR activity data, we measured the completion (encounter-level alert completion rate) and burden (the number of times an alert was fired before completion and time spent handling the alert) of the CDS tools. We report metrics tracked for 12 months post implementation, comparing 7 cancer clinics (2 clinics implemented the screening alert and 5 implemented both alerts) within a C3I center, and identify areas to improve alert design and adoption.

RESULTS

The screening alert fired in 5121 encounters during the 12 months post implementation. The encounter-level alert completion rate (clinic staff acknowledged completion of screening in EHR: 0.55; clinic staff completed EHR documentation of screening results: 0.32) remained stable over time but varied considerably across clinics. The support alert fired in 1074 encounters during the 12 months. Providers acted upon (ie, not postponed) the support alert in 87.3% (n=938) of encounters, identified a patient ready to quit in 12% (n=129) of encounters, and ordered a referral to the cessation clinic in 2% (n=22) of encounters. With respect to alert burden, on average, both alerts fired over 2 times (screening alert: 2.7; support alert: 2.1) before completion; time spent postponing the screening alert was similar to completing (52 vs 53 seconds) the alert, and time spent postponing the support alert was more than completing (67 vs 50 seconds) the alert per encounter. These findings inform four areas where the alert design and use can be improved: (1) improving alert adoption and completion through local adaptation, (2) improving support alert efficacy by additional strategies including training in provider-patient communication, (3) improving the accuracy of tracking for alert completion, and (4) balancing alert efficacy with the burden.

CONCLUSIONS

EHR activity metrics were able to monitor the success and burden of tobacco cessation alerts, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of potential trade-offs associated with alert implementation. These metrics can be used to guide implementation adaptation and are scalable across diverse settings.

Smoking Cessation and Tobacco-related Risk Perceptions among People with and without a Diagnosis of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how cancer diagnosis and tobacco-related risk perceptions are associated with smoking behavior.

METHODS

We used data from Waves (W) 1-3 (2013-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study to analyze longitudinal smoking behavior among adults who were current smokers and not previously diagnosed with cancer at baseline (W1; N = 7,829). The outcome was smoking cessation as of follow-up (W3). Explanatory variables were sociodemographics, other tobacco product use, adult at first cigarette, tobacco dependence, cancer diagnosis after baseline, and tobacco-related risk perceptions [cigarette harm perception, worry that tobacco products will damage one's health ("worry"), belief that smoking causes cancer ("belief"), and nondaily smoking harm perception].

RESULTS

Cessation was significantly associated with baseline worry (OR = 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.40), follow-up cigarette harm perception [OR = 2.01 (1.77-2.29)], and follow-up belief [OR = 1.40 (1.20-1.63)]. Cessation was inversely associated with follow-up (W3) worry, and this association was stronger among those without a cancer diagnosis (OR = 0.37 without cancer; OR = 0.76 among individuals diagnosed with cancer; interaction P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cessation is associated with tobacco-related risk perceptions, with different perceptions contributing in unique ways. Cessation is predicted by baseline worry but is inversely associated with worry at follow-up, suggesting that perhaps cessation has alleviated worry. The latter finding was stronger among respondents not diagnosed with cancer.

IMPACT

Associations between cancer diagnosis, tobacco-related risk perceptions, and smoking behavior may inform the development of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions.

Practice Current: Variability in Smoking Cessation Intervention Practice Patterns After Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

People who continue to smoke after ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk for subsequent stroke and cardiovascular events. Although effective smoking cessation strategies exist, smoking rates after stroke remain high. Through case-based discussions with 3 international vascular neurology panelists, this article seeks to explore practice patterns and barriers to smoking cessation for patients with stroke/TIA. We sought to answer these questions: What are the barriers to using smoking cessation interventions for patients with stroke/TIA? Which interventions are most used for hospitalized patients with stroke/TIA? Which interventions are most used for patients who continue smoking during follow-up? Our synthesis of panelists' commentaries is complemented by the preliminary results of an online survey posed to global readership. Together, the interviews and survey results identify practice variability and barriers to smoking cessation after stroke/TIA, suggesting that there is substantial need for research and standardization.

Relations of Current and Past Cancer with Severe Outcomes among 104,590 Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin

BACKGROUND

There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics.

METHODS

Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined.

RESULTS

6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality were 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.70] and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.96-1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and among those with current cancer (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Current cancer, especially among younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among patients with COVID-19; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types.

IMPACT

This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. See related commentary by Egan et al., p. 3.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored.

AIMS AND METHODS

We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time.

RESULTS

The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

IMPLICATIONS

This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

Perceptions of Facilitators and Barriers to Smoking Cessation Among Patients and Providers in a Cancer Center: A Single Institution Qualitative Exploratory Study

PURPOSE

Cancer patients who remain tobacco users have poorer outcomes, including increased mortality and decreased treatment tolerance; however, cessation post-diagnosis is challenging. Our formative research explored cessation-related perspectives among patients and staff at one National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center, to inform improving cessation services within oncology care.

METHODS

Using a descriptive phenomenological approach, a purposive sample of current cancer patients (n = 13) and cancer center physicians and cessation program staff (n = 9) were recruited to complete one-on-one audio-recorded in-depth qualitative interviews, to explore experiences providing or receiving cessation support, and perspectives on patients' readiness and needs regarding cessation. Thematic coding utilized Green's predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing framework to identify factors having positive, negative, or mixed impact on delivery of best-practices cessation services (ie, 5As) and patient cessation success.

RESULTS

Patients identified cancer diagnosis as a wake-up call, existing health problems, persistent healthcare providers, cost of cigarettes, and societal disapproval of smoking as factors facilitating quitting. Futility of quitting after a cancer diagnosis, cost and logistics of program participation, clinician time constraints, and lifetime addiction made quitting harder. Family, friends, stigma and motivation, and pharmacotherapies played mixed roles. Patients felt survivor-focused cessation programs, including stress management, could better enable quitting. Provider-anticipated problems with implementing cessation counseling included so-called "therapeutic nihilism" (ie, pessimism regarding cessation post-diagnosis), lack of training and standardized approaches, and time and documentation burden. Clinicians saw both policies and peer clinician "champions" as potentially increasing prioritization of cessation within oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight unmet needs for patients and providers regarding provision of effective cessation care. Despite survival benefit, cessation is still not standard within cancer care. Our results show that many patients would benefit from standardized programs where they are routinely asked about cessation. Providers would benefit from both structural enhancements and professional education to ensure that evidence-based cessation services tailored to cancer patients, are offered throughout treatment and survivorship.

Using information technology to integrate tobacco use treatment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative Cancer Centers

Background

Cancer patients who receive evidence-based tobacco-dependence treatment are more likely to quit and remain abstinent, but tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) are not consistently offered. In 2017, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, through the Cancer Moonshot, funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). C3I supports 52 cancer centers to implement and expand evidence-based tobacco treatment in routine oncology care. Integration into routine care involves the use of health information technology (IT), including modifying electronic health records and clinical workflows. Here, we examine C3I cancer centers' IT leadership involvement and experiences in tobacco-dependence treatment implementation.

Method

This qualitative study of C3I-funded cancer centers integrated data from online surveys and in-person, semistructured interviews with IT leaders. We calculated descriptive statistics of survey data and applied content analysis to interview transcripts.

Results

Themes regarding IT personnel included suggestions to involve IT early, communicate regularly, understand the roles and influence of the IT team, and match program design with IT funding and resources. Themes regarding electronic health record (EHR) modifications included beginning modifications early to account for long lead time to make changes, working with IT to identify and adapt existing EHR tools for TTP or designing tools that will support a desired workflow developed with end-users, and working with IT personnel to make sure TTPs comply with system and state policies (e.g., privacy laws).

Conclusions

The experiences of C3I cancer centers regarding the use of health IT to enhance tobacco-dependence treatment program implementation can guide cancer centers and community oncology practices to potentially enhance TTP implementation and patient outcomes.

Systematic Review of Smoking Cessation Interventions for Smokers Diagnosed with Cancer

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

Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Oncology Care: Reach and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Across National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers

PURPOSE

Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used survey data from 28 C3I centers that reported tobacco treatment data during the first 6 months of 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were treatment reach (reach)-the proportion of patients identified as currently smoking who received at least one evidence-based tobacco treatment component (eg, counseling and pharmacotherapy)-and smoking cessation effectiveness (effectiveness)-the proportion of patients reporting 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Center-level differences in reach and effectiveness were examined by center characteristics, implementation strategies, and tobacco treatment components.

RESULTS

Of the total 692,662 unique patients seen, 44,437 reported current smoking. Across centers, a median of 96% of patients were screened for tobacco use, median smoking prevalence was 7.4%, median reach was 15.4%, and median effectiveness was 18.4%. Center-level characteristics associated with higher reach included higher smoking prevalence, use of center-wide TTP, and lower patient-to-tobacco treatment specialist ratio. Higher effectiveness was observed at centers that served a larger overall population and population of patients who smoke, reported a higher smoking prevalence, and/or offered electronic health record referrals via a closed-loop system.

CONCLUSION

Whole-center TTP implementation among inpatients and outpatients, and increasing staff-to-patient ratios may improve TTP reach. Designating personnel with tobacco treatment expertise and resources to increase tobacco treatment dose or intensity may improve smoking cessation effectiveness.

Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care-The New National Cancer Institute Tobacco Control Monograph

PURPOSE

Continued smoking after the diagnosis of cancer can markedly worsen oncology treatment side effects, cancer outcomes, cancer mortality, and all-cause mortality. Conversely, mounting evidence demonstrates that smoking cessation by patients with cancer improves outcomes. A cancer diagnosis often serves as a teachable moment, characterized by high motivation to quit. However, too few patients with cancer who smoke are offered evidence-based smoking cessation treatment, and too few engage in such treatment.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The National Cancer Institute commissioned Tobacco Control Monograph 23, Treating Smoking in Cancer Patients: An Essential Component of Cancer Care, to review and synthesize the evidence that clarifies the need to intervene with smoking in cancer care.

RESULTS

Although many patients with newly diagnosed cancer who smoke make quit attempts, many of these are unsuccessful, and among those who successfully quit, relapse is common. Indeed, an estimated 12.2% of adults ever diagnosed with cancer reported they currently smoked (National Health Interview Survey, 2020). Patients with cancer who smoke are likely to benefit from smoking cessation treatments, including counseling and US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications, and there are many effective strategies to increase delivery of smoking cessation treatment in cancer care settings.

CONCLUSION

Smoking cessation is among the most effective treatment options for improving the likelihood of survival, quality of life, and overall health of patients with cancer who smoke. It is important for cancer care clinicians and patients to realize that it is never too late to quit smoking and that there are clear benefits to doing so, regardless of cancer type.

Supporting Smokers in Difficult Settings: Suggestions for Better Education and Counseling in Cancer Centers in Jordan

Continued smoking in cancer patients is commonly observed in Jordan. In a country that exhibits some of the highest smoking rates globally, enhancing patient education regarding the value of smoking cessation for cancer care is vital. The objectives of our study were to describe sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with continued smoking in Jordanian smokers after a cancer diagnosis; to identify reasons for smoking and knowledge regarding smoking's impact on care; to examine in a multivariable manner the factors associated with continued smoking, and to accordingly generate patient counseling recommendations. An interviewer-administered survey using the Theoretical Domains Framework was employed. Among 350 subjects (mean age 51.0, median 52.7), approximately 38% of patients had quit or were in the process of quitting; 61.7% remained smokers. Substantial knowledge gaps with regard to the impact of continued smoking on cancer care were observed. Remaining a smoker after diagnosis was associated with being employed, not receiving chemotherapy or surgery, having lower confidence in quitting, and having a lower number of identified reasons for smoking. Interventions to promote cessation in Jordanian cancer patients who smoke should focus on enhancing patient awareness about the impact of smoking in cancer care and raising perceived self-efficacy to quit.

A Daily Assessment Study of Smoking Cessation After a Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

This intensive longitudinal study describes key events in the process of smoking cessation after a new head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis. Prior longitudinal studies show some cancer patients quit, while others continue to smoke, but details about the pattern in which these discrete outcomes arise are scarce. This study is meant to help rectify this gap in the literature.

AIMS AND METHODS

Participants were 42 HNC patients who reported current smoking at enrollment. Participants were recruited from an outpatient oncology clinic and completed a baseline questionnaire prior to begin a 30-day daily assessment.

RESULTS

Few participants (9.52%) achieved 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking. On average, participants reported 9.64 ± 11.93 total days of abstinence. Nearly, all (94.44%, n = 34) participants made at least one quit attempt, with an average of 16.94 ± 11.30 quit attempt days. Fewer participants were able to achieve a 24-hour quit attempt (52.78%, n = 19), with a corresponding average of 5.50 ± 8.69 24-hour days. The median time to first 24-hour quit attempt was 13 days after enrollment. Based on smoking behavioral patterns, participants were categorized into five groups, the most common being "persistent attempters," which involved unsuccessful quit attempts throughout the study. Only 45% of participants (n = 19) used evidence-based treatment, the most common being cessation medication.

CONCLUSIONS

This intensive longitudinal study found that cancer diagnosis can spur a lot of efforts to quit smoking. Unfortunately, this study suggests that many quit attempts are short lived, possibly a result of an absence or insufficient use of evidence-based treatments.

IMPLICATIONS

For adults who are current smokers at the time of cancer diagnosis, there is a high likelihood of persistent cigarette smoking and use of other tobacco products in the weeks and months after a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, this study shows that while a lot of quit attempts may occur, few are successful, which may be partly attributable to the low use of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Future research with cancer patients should aim to identify predictors of quit attempts and abstinence as well as treatment utilization.

Smoking cessation knowledge and perceptions of cancer care providers at six Latin American cancer institutions

Objective

To assess the characteristics, self-reported tobacco use, knowledge, and perceptions about smoking cessation among cancer care providers (CCPs), as well as perceived barriers to inform interventions that can potentially improve quitting rates and the prognosis of cancer patients in Latin America.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 996 CCPs in six cancer institutions located in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru. An online survey consisting of 28 close-ended questions adapted from the 2012 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer survey and the Global Adult Tobacco Survey was administered.

Results

The majority of CCPs, ranging from 86.1% in Mexico to 95.9% in Brazil, agreed or strongly agreed that smoking cessation should be integrated into cancer treatment. However, inadequate training on smoking cessation was reported by 66.9%, 69.4%, 70.4%, 72.9%, 85.8%, and 86.4% in Mexico, Colombia (Floridablanca), Argentina, Peru, Brazil, and Colombia (Medellín), respectively, and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Moreover, current cigarette smoking prevalence among CCPs was 2.5% in Brazil, 4.6% in Peru, 6.3% in Colombia (Floridablanca), 10.4% in Colombia (Medellín), 11.5% in Mexico, and 15.1% in Argentina, showing a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Efforts in Latin America should be geared toward assisting CCPs with their quitting efforts and training in smoking cessation practices aimed at achieving a better prognosis and improving cancer patients' quality of life.

Long-term follow-up of smokers following lung and colorectal cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis limits the effectiveness of treatment, increases the risk of cancer recurrence or secondary malignancies, and is associated with poorer quality of life and survival. A cancer diagnosis may provide a meaningful timepoint for quitting, but the prevalence and characteristics of continued smoking through survivorship are poorly understood.

METHODS

In the multi-regional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) cohort, we examined smoking rates and factors associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up among lung and colorectal cancer patients. This paper builds upon previous CanCORS participant data addressing quit rates and associated characteristics at baseline and 5 months post-diagnosis.

RESULTS

At long-term follow-up (median 7.3 years post-diagnosis [IQR = 5.9-8.7]), 16.7% of lung cancer and 11.6% of colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke combustible cigarettes. Factors independently associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up included being male, younger, not married or partnered, having Medicare, Medicaid/other public or no insurance, more depression symptoms, smoking more cigarettes per day, and having a history of lung disease (p < .05). Continued smoking did not vary by lung vs. colorectal cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Of active smokers at the time of diagnosis, an important minority of lung and colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke well into survivorship. Understanding characteristics associated with continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis may help inform the development of tobacco treatment programs for cancer patients and survivors.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS

While addressing smoking cessation at the time of diagnosis is critical to ensure better long-term treatment outcomes and quality of life, it is essential to continue smoking cessation discussions and efforts throughout care and survivorship.

Assessment of formal tobacco treatment and smoking cessation in dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes

BACKGROUND

The utility of electronic cigarettes ('e-cigarettes') as a smoking cessation adjunct remains unclear. Similarly, it is unclear if formal tobacco treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) augments smoking cessation in individuals who use both cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

METHODS

We performed a longitudinal cohort study of adult outpatients evaluated in our tertiary care medical centre (6/2018-6/2020). E-cigarette use, smoking status and formal tobacco treatment (deterrent pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) were assessed in 6-month blocks (eg, cohort 1 (C1)=6/2018-12/2018, C2=1/2019-6/2019 and so on) using our electronic health record. We assessed the relationship between e-cigarette use (either with or without formal tobacco treatment) and point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months.

RESULTS

111 823 unique patients were included in the study. The prevalence of dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes increased significantly over the study period (C1=0.8%; C2=1.1%; C3=1.8%; C4=2.3%; p<0.001). The prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among e-cigarette users (20.8%) compared with non-users (16.8%) (risk difference, 4.0% (95% CI 2.5% to 5.5%); adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.354, 95% CI 1.252 to 1.464, p<0.0001). Further, among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, the prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among individuals who received tobacco treatment (29.1%) compared with individuals who did not receive tobacco treatment (19.6%) (risk difference, 9.5% (95% CI, 4.6% to 14.4%); aRR 1.238, 95% CI 1.071 to 1.432, p=0.004).

INTERPRETATION

These results suggest that dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes benefit from formal tobacco treatment. Clinicians should consider offering formal tobacco treatment to such patients, though future trials are needed.

Lung cancer: Prevention and early identification are key

ABSTRACT

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Many of the presenting symptoms of lung cancer are indistinguishable from symptoms of other problems, which often leads to delays of a lung cancer diagnosis. Early identification can lead to a timely diagnosis and improved quality of life.

Smoking cessation by combined medication and counselling: a feasibility study in lung cancer patients

PURPOSE

Smoking cessation in patients with diagnosed lung cancer has positive effects on cancer therapy and overall prognosis. Despite this, knowledge on smoking cessation in lung cancer patients is sparse.

METHODS

This is an observational single centre, 12-week, prospective, single-arm trial at a tertiary lung cancer centre. Responsive patients were enrolled following confirmed lung cancer diagnosis. Smoking cessation intervention included counselling as well as pharmacotherapy. The primary endpoint was the point prevalence abstinence rate at week 12 based on biochemical verification. Secondary endpoints were the abstinence rate at week 26, quality of life and side effects.

RESULTS

80 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 62.6 ± 7.9 years. Most patients (63%) were treated with chemotherapy or radiochemotherapy. 39 patients used nicotine replacement therapy, 35 varenicline whereas six patients did not use pharmacotherapy. During the study period 13 patients died. Data were available in 72 patients after 12 weeks and 57 patients at week 24. Point prevalence abstinence rates were 37.5% (95% CI 26.4-49.7%) at week 12 and 32.8% (95% CI 21.8-45.4%) at week 26, respectively. Quality of life and side effects were not significantly affected by pharmacotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our results suggest that smoking cessation is feasible in patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer. The observed abstinence rate is comparable to other patient cohorts. Furthermore, pharmacotherapy in addition to cancer therapy was safe and did not show novel side effects in these seriously ill patients. Thus, smoking cessation should be an integral part of lung cancer treatment. Trial registration The study was conducted in accordance with good clinical practice standards (GCP) and approved by the local ethics committee (16/3/14), the European PAS registry (EUPAS8748) and the German BfArM (NIS-Studien-Nr. 5508). All patients provided written informed consent before study enrollment.

Cessation experiences and quitting perspectives of Jordanian cancer patients who smoke

OBJECTIVES

To describe quitting experiences of cancer patients in a Cancer Center in Jordan; to study patients' perceptions regarding the process of smoking cessation; and to provide insights about patients in this difficult setting in order to inform oncology practitioners with regards to how improve perceptions and skills related to quitting.

METHODS

An Arabic cross-sectional questionnaire was developed to evaluate smoking and quitting behaviors in the context of cancer. The tool used as its framework the Theoretical Domains Framework to capture quitting perceptions of cancer patients who smoke, as well as social, environmental, and system-level factors that influence quitting. Eligible patients who were treated at the Center (both in-patient and out-patient settings) and who were current smokers or who smoked up to the time of cancer diagnosis were eligible. Patients were interviewed between July, 2018 and January 2020 using two versions of the questionnaire: an 'ex-smokers' version, and a 'current smokers' version.

RESULTS

Only a third of subjects (104/350) had been smoke-free for at least 30 days. Both smokers and ex-smokers generally felt that quitting was important, but mean importance and confidence scores (out of 10) were significantly lower in current smokers (8.2 versus 9.1, p-value=0.002; 6.4 versus 8.7, p-value=0.000). Roughly 31% of subjects believed smoking harms were exaggerated and that smoking was not an addiction. About 62% of subjects agreed quitting required skills, and 78.5% felt the steps to quit were clear, but across several listed strategies for quitting, use of these was limited (even in ex-smokers). Among current smokers, roughly a third exhibited forms of cessation fatigue.

CONCLUSION

Jordanian cancer patients who smoke present with limited knowledge about the quitting process. Even when some success is observed, low rates of utilization of specific quitting strategies were observed, highlighting the need for better counseling about quitting.

Hospital-based tobacco treatment for inpatients with a history of cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment engagement and outcomes of patients who smoke with cancer and received tobacco cessation treatment during hospitalization.

METHOD

We analyzed treatment engagement and cessation outcomes for hospitalized patients who smoke with a current or former history of cancer receiving treatment from an inpatient tobacco treatment service between July, 2018 to October, 2019.

RESULTS

The service treated 407 inpatients. Patients had an overall high level of interest in quitting (7.6, 0-10 scale). One in three accepted cessation pharmacotherapies during hospitalization or at discharge (35%) and/or referral to the state tobacco quitline (37%). Of 189 patients reached at one-month post-discharge, 73 (39%) reported tobacco abstinence (18% intent to treat-ITT-quit rate); 35.5% had used cessation pharmacotherapy and 6.5% had engaged in quitline counseling. Of 151 patients reached at 6 months post-discharge, 29% reported abstinence (11%, ITT).

CONCLUSION

Inpatients with a history of cancer are interested in quitting. Post-discharge quit rates and pharmacotherapy use were high but quitline use was low. Hospitalization is an under-utilized, prime treatment opportunity and teachable moment for people with a history of cancer who continue to use tobacco.

Patterns and associations of smoking and electronic cigarette use among survivors of tobacco related and non-tobacco related cancers: A nationally representative cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Tobacco-use among cancer survivors leads to preventable morbidity, mortality, and increased healthcare costs. We sought to explore the prevalence of smoking and e-cigarette use among survivors of tobacco and non-tobacco related cancers.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the 2015-2018 National Health Interview Survey. Our primary outcome was the prevalence of current cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use among adults with self-reported history of tobacco related or non-tobacco related cancer. Logistic regression analysis was to assess the association of reported cancer type with cigarette smoking or e-cigarette use. Secondary outcomes included yearly trends and dual use.

RESULTS

A total of 12,984 respondents reported a history of cancer, representing a weighted estimate of 5,060,059 individuals with a history of tobacco-related malignancy and 17,583,788 with a history of a tobacco and non-tobacco related cancer, respectively. Survivors of tobacco-related cancers had a significantly higher prevalence of current cigarette use (18.2 % vs 9.7 %, P < 0.0001), e-cigarette use (2.7 % vs 1.6 %, P < 0.0001) and similar rates of dual use. The prevalence of cigarette smoking among all survivors increased as time increased from the year of diagnosis up to 2 years post-diagnosis (P = 0.047). Odds of reporting current cigarette smoking use was higher for survivors of tobacco-related cancers, adjusted for sociodemographic factors (OR1.69, 95 % CI 1.44-1.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of tobacco-related cancers have a higher prevalence of current cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use compared to survivors of non-tobacco related cancers. There was a sequential increase in the prevalence of cigarette use during each subsequent year from the time of a new cancer diagnosis, underscoring the need for long term tobacco cessation support among newly diagnosed adults with cancer.

Point of care tobacco treatment sustains during COVID-19, a global pandemic

BACKGROUND

Tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients is essential to providing comprehensive oncologic care. We have implemented a point of care tobacco treatment care model enabled by electronic health record (EHR) modifications in a comprehensive cancer center. Data are needed on the sustainability of both reach of treatment and effectiveness over time, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Using EHR data from the pre-implementation (P: 5 months) and post-implementation periods (6 month-blocks, T1-T5 for a total of 30 months), we compared two primary outcomes: 1) reach of treatment among those smoking and 2) effectiveness assessed by smoking cessation among those smoking in the subsequent 6 month period. We analyzed the data using generalized estimation equation regression models.

RESULTS

With the point of care tobacco treatment care model, reach of treatment increased from pre to post T5 (3.2 % vs. 48.4 %, RR 15.50, 95 % CI 10.56-22.74, p < 0.0001). Reach of treatment in all post periods (T1-T5 including the COVID-19 pandemic time) remained significantly higher than the pre period. Effectiveness, defined by smoking cessation among those smoking, increased from pre to post T2 before the pandemic (12.4 % vs. 21.4 %, RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.31-1.87, p < 0.0001). However, effectiveness, while higher in later post periods (T3, T4), was no longer significantly increased compared with the pre period.

CONCLUSION

A point of care EHR-enabled tobacco treatment care model demonstrates sustained reach up to 30 months following implementation, even during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in healthcare prioritization. Effectiveness was sustained for 12 months, but did not sustain through the subsequent 12 months.

Country profile: Australia, New South Wales. From validation to implementation: Progressing tobacco smoking cessation among people with cancer and beyond via relevant authorities

This paper delineates how a program of tobacco smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis was achieved by engagement of multiple stakeholders, government, and non-government authorities in one jurisdiction in Australia, New South Wales. While it had become increasingly obvious that smoking cessation imparts benefits akin to other known treatment modalities, knowledge of this generalisation is without benefit unless this information is delivered in a trusted context and means to quit are made available. Against a backdrop of little enthusiasm among clinicians, the Cancer Institute NSW, charged with implementing tobacco control strategies, decided to focus its 2017 annual colloquium on the topic. While the evidence was unequivocal, better clarity was needed that this was indeed a clinical responsibility, and on the resources needed. The Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, (COSA) a non-governmental peak national body representing cancer care professionals, addressed this challenge. The society's governing body resolved to develop a position statement indicating how smoking cessation might be integrated within hospital-based cancer care. The position statement, endorsed by nineteen other cancer and non-cancer organisations, provided reassurance to the Institute to improve record capture of hospital smoking information; upskill all clinical staff and develop an automatic "patient opt out" referral to existing resources such as the Quitline. Early pilot work shows that people newly diagnosed with cancer who smoke and who were advised at that time to quit increased from 55% in 2016 to 72% in 2019.

Subsequent primary cancer risk among five-year survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive examination of the incidence and mortality of subsequent primary cancers (SPCs) among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors in the US is lacking.

METHODS

Cancer incidence and mortality among 170,404 ≥ 5-year cancer survivors aged 15-39 years at first primary cancer diagnosis during 1975-2013 in 9 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries were compared to those in the general population using standardized incidence ratio (SIR), absolute excess incidence (AEI), standardized mortality ratio (SMR), and absolute excess mortality (AEM).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 14.6 years, 13,420 SPC cases and 5,008 SPC deaths occurred among survivors (excluding the same-site as index cancer), corresponding to 25% higher incidence (95%CI = 1.23-1.27; AEI = 10.8 per 10,000) and 84% higher mortality (95%CI = 1.79-1.89; AEM = 9.2 per 10,000) than that in the general population. Overall SPC risk was statistically significantly higher for 20 of 29 index cancers for incidence and 26 for mortality, with the highest SIR among female Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (SIR = 3.05, 95%CI = 2.88-3.24; AEI = 73.0 per 10,000) and the highest SMR among small intestine cancer survivors (SMR = 6.97, 95%CI = 4.80-9.79; AEM = 64.1 per 10,000). Type-specific SPC risks varied substantially by index cancers; however, SPCs of the female breast, lung, and colorectum combined constituted 36% of all SPC cases and 39% of all SPC deaths, with lung cancer alone representing 11% and 24% of all cases and deaths, respectively.

CONCLUSION

AYA cancer survivors are almost twice as likely to die from a new primary cancer as the general population, highlighting the need for primary care clinicians to prioritize cancer prevention and targeted surveillance strategies in these individuals.

Increased Reach and Effectiveness With a Low-Burden Point-of-Care Tobacco Treatment Program in Cancer Clinics

BACKGROUND

Tobacco cessation after a cancer diagnosis can extend patient survival by improving outcomes for primary cancer and preventing secondary cancers. However, smoking is often unaddressed in cancer care, highlighting the need for strategies to increase treatment reach and cessation. This study examined a low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment program (ELEVATE) featuring an electronic health record-enabled smoking module and decision support tools to increase the reach and effectiveness of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment.

METHODS

This study included adult outpatient tobacco smokers (n=13,651) in medical oncology, internal medicine, and surgical oncology clinics from a large midwestern healthcare system. We examined reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE with 2 comparisons: (1) preimplementation versus postimplementation of ELEVATE and (2) ELEVATE versus usual care. Data were evaluated during 2 time periods: preimplementation (January through May 2018) and postimplementation (June through December 2018), with smoking cessation assessed at the last follow-up outpatient encounter during the 6 months after these periods.

RESULTS

The proportion of current tobacco smokers receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (1.6%-27.9%; difference, 26.3%; relative risk, 16.9 [95% CI, 9.8-29.2]; P<.001). Compared with 27.9% treatment reach with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, reach within usual care clinics ranged from 11.8% to 12.0% during this same period. The proportion of tobacco smokers who subsequently achieved cessation increased significantly from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (12.0% vs 17.2%; difference, 5.2%; relative risk, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.5]; P=.002). Compared with 17.2% smoking cessation with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, achievement of cessation within usual care clinics ranged from 8.2% to 9.9% during this same period.

CONCLUSIONS

A low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment strategy increased tobacco treatment and cessation, thereby improving access to and the impact of evidence-based cessation treatment. Using implementation strategies to embed tobacco treatment in every healthcare encounter promises to engage more smokers in evidence-based treatment and facilitate smoking cessation, thereby improving care cancer for patients who smoke.

How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.

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.

Operationalizing Leadership and Clinician Buy-In to Implement Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Programs in Routine Oncology Care: A Mixed-Method Study of the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

BACKGROUND

Delivering evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment in oncology settings improves smoking abstinence and cancer outcomes. Leadership engagement/buy-in is critical for implementation success, but few studies have defined buy-in or described how to secure buy-in for tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) in cancer care. This study examines buy-in during the establishment of tobacco treatment programs at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers.

METHODS

We utilized a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods approach to analyze quantitative data and qualitative interviews with program leads in the U.S.-based NCI Moonshot-supported Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (n = 20 Centers). We calculated descriptive statistics and applied structural coding and content analysis to qualitative data.

RESULTS

At least 75% of participating centers secured health care system administrative, clinical, and IT leadership buy-in and support. Six themes emerged from interviews: engaging leadership, access to resources, leveraging federal funding support to build leadership interest, designating champions, identifying training needs, and ensuring staff roles and IT systems support workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

Buy-in among staff and clinicians is defined by the belief that the TTP is necessary, valuable, and evidence based. Recognizing and securing these dimensions of buy-in can facilitate implementation success, leading to improved cancer outcomes.

Challenges and Adaptations for Providing Smoking Cessation for Patients with Cancer across Canada during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis can improve health outcomes, but the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly altered healthcare patterns and strained resources, including for smoking cessation support for cancer patients. A Network that included all 13 provinces and territories (jurisdictions) in Canada received funding and coordinated support from a national organization to implement access to smoking cessation support in cancer care between 2016 and 2021, including throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive analyses of meetings between the organization and jurisdictions between March of 2020 and August of 2021 demonstrated that all jurisdictions reported disruptions of existing smoking cessation approaches. Common challenges include staff redeployment, inability to deliver support in person, disruptions in travel, and loss of connections with other clinical resources. Common adaptations included budget and workflow adjustments, transition to virtual approaches, partnering with other community resources, and coupling awareness of the harms of smoking and COVID-19. All jurisdictions reported adaptations that maintained or improved access to smoking cessation services. Collectively, data suggest coordinated national efforts to address smoking cessation in cancer care could be crucial to maintaining access during an international healthcare crisis.