Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at NCI Cancer Centers: Progress of the NCI Cancer Moonshot-Funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Hospital outcomes for young adults with COVID-19

Background

Older adults are at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 with comorbidities increasing such risk. Much less is known about the outcomes of young adults with COVID-19 despite their having had high infection rates.

Objectives

Our objective was to determine outcomes of hospitalized young adults with COVID-19 infection including rates of oxygen use, mortality, ICU admission, intubation, duration of hospitalization, and factors associated with adverse outcomes.

Study design

This retrospective cohort study included EHR data from 21 health systems in the United States on 18-29-year-olds hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020 - January 31, 2022. Oxygen need was used to identify symptomatic COVID-19. Rates for mortality, ICU admission, and intubation were calculated for the symptomatic and asymptomatic groups. Effects of demographic and health characteristics on outcomes were assessed as were changes in hospital outcomes over time.

Results

Our sample included 9871 young adults hospitalized with COVID-19; 35% required oxygen. Of those who required oxygen, 53.5% were female, 23.7% had an anxiety disorder, 2.6% died (n = 89), 27.7% were admitted to the ICU (n = 955), and 15.8% were intubated (n = 547). A past-year history of any cancer was associated with a 2.1 times increased odds of death. Vaccination was associated with a >40% reduction in the odds of ICU admission. Mortality rates did not change significantly across the study period.

Conclusions

COVID-19 caused significant morbidity and mortality in hospitalized young adults who required oxygen. A cancer history was associated with increased risk of death. Vaccination appeared to have had a protective effect on illness severity.

Understanding cancer patients' desire to quit tobacco without assistance: A mixed-methods study

While many cancer patients who use tobacco try to quit post-diagnosis, some prefer to quit without using tobacco treatment, despite evidence against unassisted quit attempts. This study aimed to understand the rationale for some cancer patients' desire to quit tobacco without assistance. Thirty-five adult cancer patients who currently used tobacco and declined tobacco treatment because of the desire to quit unassisted provided data via a standardized questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. The sample was predominately White, non-Hispanic (85.71%) and female (68.57%). The most common cancer site was gynecological. Key themes that emerged from the interviews were: self-reliance, willpower, social norms, and negative attitudes toward tobacco treatment. The most frequently endorsed barrier to tobacco treatment was "I know others who have quit without tobacco treatment" (82.86%). This study with cancer patients identified affective, cognitive, and personality factors related to quitting unassisted, and social and systemic reasons to not use tobacco treatment.

Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons

PURPOSE

Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice.

METHODS

Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs.

RESULTS

Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%).

CONCLUSION

Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices.

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.

Genomic medicine to reduce tobacco and related disorders: Translation to precision prevention and treatment

Genomic medicine can enhance prevention and treatment. First, we propose that advances in genomics have the potential to enhance assessment of disease risk, improve prognostic predictions, and guide treatment development and application. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) has emerged as an area of active research. The pathway from genomic discovery to implementation is an iterative process. Second, we provide examples on how genomic medicine has the potential to solve problems in prevention and treatment using two examples: Lung cancer screening and evidence-based tobacco treatment are both under-utilized and great opportunities for genomic interventions. Third, we discuss the translational process for developing genomic interventions from evidence to implementation by presenting a model to evaluate genomic evidence for clinical implementation, mechanisms of genomic interventions, and patient desire for genomic interventions. Fourth, we present potential challenges in genomic interventions including a great need for evidence in all diverse populations, little evidence on treatment algorithms, challenges in accommodating a dynamic evidence base, and implementation challenges in real world clinical settings. Finally, we conclude that research to identify genomic markers that are associated with smoking cessation success and the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments is needed to empower people of all diverse ancestry. Importantly, genomic data can be used to help identify patients with elevated risk for nicotine addiction, difficulty quitting smoking, favorable response to specific pharmacotherapy, and tobacco-related health problems.

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.

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.

Smoking cessation pharmacotherapy use during index hospital admission following cystectomy for bladder cancer: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To identify gaps in urologic oncology quality and evidence-based smoking cessation care by assessing how often smoking cessation pharmacotherapy (SCP) is given in the inpatient setting following cystectomy.

METHODS

The Premier Healthcare Database (PHD), a deidentified all-payer dataset, was used to generate nationally representative estimates of SCP receipt during hospitalization following cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer who smoke. Regressions were used to model associations between SCP receipt and patient- and hospital-level factors.

RESULTS

Of the 21,624 patients who underwent cystectomy for bladder cancer, 3,676 patients (17.0%) were identified as current smokers, representing a weighted estimate of 16,063 admissions. Among these admissions, 27.9% of patients received SCP, the vast majority of which (91.5%) received exclusively nicotine replacement therapy. Rates of SCP receipt varied substantially across hospitals (median: 25.0%, IQR: 20.0-33.3, range: 0.0-60.0). Older age and black race (aOR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.42-0.82) were associated with lower odds of SCP receipt. Increased patient comorbidity score was associated with higher odds of SCP receipt (aOR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03); specifically, chronic pulmonary disease, alcohol abuse, and depression were independently associated with SCP receipt. Hospital teaching status, bed capacity, and mean annual cystectomy volume were not associated with SCP receipt. SCP receipt was not associated with hospital length of stay nor 90-day readmission or mortality following cystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

SCP is infrequently given to patients who smoke during their hospitalization following cystectomy for bladder cancer, representing a gap in quality urologic oncology care and a missed opportunity to effectively intervene with evidence-based treatment.

Smoking Cessation After Diagnosis of Kidney Cancer Is Associated With Reduced Risk of Mortality and Cancer Progression: A Prospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

To investigate whether postdiagnosis smoking cessation may affect the risk of death and disease progression in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who smoked at the time of diagnosis.

METHODS

Two hundred twelve patients with primary RCC were recruited between 2007 and 2016 from the Urological Department in N.N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology, Moscow, Russia. Upon enrollment, a structured questionnaire was completed, and the patients were followed annually through 2020 to repeatedly assess their smoking status and disease progression. Survival probabilities and hazards for all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and disease progression were investigated using extended the Kaplan-Meier method, time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression, and Fine-Gray competing-risk models.

RESULTS

Patients were followed for a median of 8.2 years. During this time, 110 cases of disease progression, 100 total deaths, and 77 cancer-specific deaths were recorded. Eighty-four patients (40%) quit smoking after diagnosis. The total person-years at risk for this analysis were 748.2 for continuing smoking and 611.2 for quitting smoking periods. At 5 years of follow-up, both overall survival (85% v 61%) and progression-free survival (80% v 57%) rates were higher during the quitting than continuing smoking periods (both P < .001). In the multivariable time-dependent models, quitting smoking was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.85), disease progression (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.71), and cancer-specific mortality (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.93). The beneficial effect of quitting smoking was evident across all subgroups, including light smokers versus moderate-heavy smokers and those with early-stage versus late-stage tumors.

CONCLUSION

Quitting smoking after RCC diagnosis may significantly improve survival and reduce the risk of disease progression and cancer mortality among patients who smoke.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evaluation of Cancer Deaths Attributable to Tobacco in California, 2014-2019

IMPORTANCE

California's tobacco control efforts have been associated with a decrease in cancer mortality, but these estimates are based on smoking prevalence of the general population. Patient-level tobacco use information allows for more precise estimates of the proportion of cancer deaths attributable to smoking.

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the proportion (smoking-attributable fraction) and number (smoking-attributable cancer mortality) of cancer deaths attributable to tobacco use using patient-level data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The smoking-attributable fraction and smoking-attributable cancer mortality were calculated for a retrospective cohort of patients whose cancer was diagnosed from 2014 to 2019 with at least 1 year of follow-up using relative risks from large US prospective studies and patient-level smoking information. Follow-up continued through April 2022. A population-based cohort was identified from the California Cancer Registry. Participants included adults aged 20 years and older with a diagnosis of 1 of the 12 tobacco-related cancers (oral cavity or pharynx, larynx, esophagus, lung, liver, stomach, pancreas, kidney, bladder, colon or rectum, cervix, and acute myeloid leukemia).

EXPOSURES

Tobacco use defined as current, former, or never.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the smoking-attributable fraction and smoking-attributable cancer mortality for each of the 12 tobacco-related cancers over 2 time periods (2014-2016 vs 2017-2019) and by sex.

RESULTS

Among 395 459 patients with a tobacco-related cancer, most (285 768 patients [72.3%]) were older than 60 years, the majority (228 054 patients [57.7%]) were non-Hispanic White, 229 188 patients were men (58.0%), and nearly one-half (184 415 patients [46.6%]) had lung or colorectal cancers. Nearly one-half of the deaths (93 764 patients [45.8%]) in the cohort were attributable to tobacco. More than one-half (227 660 patients [57.6%]) of patients had ever used tobacco, and 69 103 patients (17.5%) were current tobacco users, which was higher than the proportion in the general population (11.7%). The overall smoking-attributable fraction of cancer deaths decreased significantly from 47.7% (95% CI, 47.3%-48.0%) in 2014 to 2016 to 44.8% (95% CI, 44.5%-45.1%) in 2017 to 2019, and this decrease was seen for both men and women. The overall smoking-attributable cancer mortality decreased by 10.2%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

California still has a substantial burden of tobacco use and associated cancer. The proportion of cancer deaths associated with tobacco use was almost double what was previously estimated. There was a modest but significant decline in this proportion for overall tobacco-associated cancers, especially for women.

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.

Changes in Cigarette Smoking Behavior in Cancer Survivors During Diagnosis and Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Continued cigarette smoking is a critical determinant of outcome in oncology patients, but how the separate events of cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, and completion of treatment affect smoking behavior in cancer survivors is unknown. This study described such changes, hypothesizing that they would be more pronounced for smoking-related cancers.

METHODS

The Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (CTUQ) was sent to every cancer patient ≥ 18 y old scheduled for outpatient visits at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center with a current or former history of tobacco use.

RESULTS

From September 2019 to September 2020, 33,831 patients received the CTUQ, and 20,818 (62%) responded. Of the 3007 current smokers analyzed, 34% quit at diagnosis; those with smoking-related cancers were more likely to quit (40% vs. 29%, respectively, p < .001). Among those who did not quit at diagnosis, 31% quit after starting cancer treatment, and those with smoking-related cancers were more likely to quit (35% and 28%, respectively, p = .002) Among those who had quit before the completion of treatment, 13% resumed smoking after treatment ended. In multivariable analysis, patients with smoking-related cancers were more likely to report 30-d point prevalence abstinence from pre-diagnosis to the completion of treatment (adjusted OR 1.98 [95% CI 1.65, 2.36], p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both cancer diagnosis and treatment prompt smoking abstinence, with most maintaining abstinence after treatment is completed. Those with smoking-related cancers are more likely to quit. These results emphasize the need to provide access to tobacco treatment services that can further support cancer patients who smoke.

IMPLICATIONS

Approximately one-third of cancer patients who smoke quit smoking at the time of diagnosis, an additional one-third of patients who had not yet quit did so at the initiation of treatment, and most sustained this abstinence after treatment completion. Patients with smoking-related cancers are more likely to quit. Thus, there are multiple opportunities within the cancer care continuum to intervene and support quit attempts or continued abstinence.

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.

Smoking Status, Nicotine Medication, Vaccination, and COVID-19 Hospital Outcomes: Findings from the COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin (CEC-UW) Study

INTRODUCTION

Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown.

METHODS

Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission.

RESULTS

Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers.

IMPLICATIONS

Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer

Importance

Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs.

Objective

To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers.

Exposures

Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios).

Results

The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

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.

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.

Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion and access to primary-care based smoking cessation assistance among cancer survivors: an observational cohort study

Background

Smoking among cancer survivors can increase the risk of cancer reoccurrence, reduce treatment effectiveness and decrease quality of life. Cancer survivors without health insurance have higher rates of smoking and decreased probability of quitting smoking than cancer survivors with health insurance. This study examines the associations of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid insurance expansion with smoking cessation assistance and quitting smoking among cancer survivors seen in community health centers (CHCs).

Methods

Using electronic health record data from 337 primary care community health centers in 12 states that expanded Medicaid eligibility and 273 CHCs in 8 states that did not expand, we identified adult cancer survivors with a smoking status indicating current smoking within 6 months prior to ACA expansion in 2014 and ≥ 1 visit with smoking status assessed within 24-months post-expansion. Using an observational cohort propensity score weighted approach and logistic generalized estimating equation regression, we compared odds of quitting smoking, having a cessation medication ordered, and having ≥6 visits within the post-expansion period among cancer survivors in Medicaid expansion versus non-expansion states.

Results

Cancer survivors in expansion states had higher odds of having a smoking cessation medication order (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.54, 95%CI = 1.61-4.03) and higher odds of having ≥6 office visits than those in non-expansion states (aOR = 1.82, 95%CI = 1.22-2.73). Odds of quitting smoking did not differ significantly between patients in Medicaid expansion versus non-expansion states.

Conclusions

The increased odds of having a smoking cessation medication order among cancer survivors seen in Medicaid expansion states compared with those seen in non-expansion states provides evidence of the importance of health insurance coverage in accessing evidence-based tobacco treatment within CHCs. Continued research is needed to understand why, despite increased odds of having a cessation medication prescribed, odds of quitting smoking were not significantly higher among cancer survivors in Medicaid expansion states compared to non-expansion states.

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.

Smoking cessation: health system challenges and opportunities

The systematic integration of evidence-based tobacco treatment has yet to be broadly viewed as a standard-of-care. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control recommends the provision of support for tobacco cessation. We argue that the provision of smoking cessation services in clinical settings is a fundamental clinical responsibility and permits the opportunity to more effectively assist with cessation. The role of clinicians in prioritising smoking cessation is essential in all settings. Clinical benefits of implementing cessation services in hospital settings have been recognised for three decades-but have not been consistently provided. The Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation has used an 'organisational change' approach to its introduction and has served as the basis for the introduction of cessation programmes in hospital and primary care settings in Canada and elsewhere. The significance of smoking cessation dwarfs that of many preventive interventions in primary care. Compelling evidence attests to the importance of providing cessation services as part of cancer treatment, but implementation of such programmes has been slow. We recognise that the provision of such services must reflect the realities and resources of a particular health system. In low-income and middle-income countries, access to treatment facilities pose unique challenges. The integration of cessation programmes with tuberculosis control services may offer opportunities; and standardisation of peri-operative care to include smoking cessation may not require additional resources. Mobile phones afford unique opportunities for interactive cessation programming. Health system change is fundamental to improving the provision of cessation services; clinicians can be powerful advocates for such change.

Reach and effectiveness of the NCI Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Smoking cessation results in improved cancer treatment outcomes. However, the factors associated with successful implementation of cessation programs in cancer care settings are not well understood. This paper presents the reach the reach and effectiveness of cessation programs implemented in NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted among C3I Cancer Centers from July 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 (N = 38). Reach was calculated as the proportion of patients reporting current smoking that received cessation treatment and was analyzed overall and by organizational characteristics. Smoking abstinence rates were determined by the proportion of participants self-reporting smoking abstinence in the previous 7 and 30 days at 6 months after treatment. On average, nearly 30% of patients who smoked received any cessation treatment. In-person counseling was most implemented but reached an average of only 13.2% of patients who smoked. Although less frequently implemented, average reach was highest for counseling provided via an interactive voice response system (55.8%) and telephone-based counseling (18.7%). Reach was higher at centers with more established programs, electronic health record referral systems, and higher smoking prevalence. At 6-month follow-up, about a fifth of participants on average had not smoked in the past 7 days (21.7%) or past 30 days (18.6%). Variations in reach by organizational characteristics suggest that leadership engagement and investment in technology-facilitated programs may yield higher levels of reach. Understanding which implementation and intervention strategies facilitate greater cessation treatment reach and effectiveness could lead to improved outcomes among cancer patients who smoke.

Tobacco Use and Tobacco Treatment Referral Response of Patients With Cancer: Implementation Outcomes at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center

PURPOSE

Smoking after a cancer diagnosis is linked to cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, among other adverse outcomes. Yet, 10%-20% of US cancer survivors are current smokers. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco treatment in cancer care facilities is widely recommended, yet rarely accomplished. This study focuses on the early outcomes of a population-based tobacco treatment program integrated within an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The sample consists of 26,365 patients seen at the cancer center during the first 18 months of program implementation. The study is a retrospective chart review of patients' tobacco use and, among current users, patients' treatment referral response.

RESULTS

More than 99% of patients were screened for tobacco use. Current (past month) use was observed in 21.05% of patients; cigarettes were the most popular product. Only 17.22% of current users accepted a referral for tobacco treatment; among current users who declined, the majority were not ready to quit (65.84%) or wanted to quit on their own (27.01%). Multiple demographic variables were associated with tobacco use and treatment referral response outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Despite cancer diagnosis presenting a teachable moment for tobacco cessation, patients with cancer may not be ready to quit or engage with treatment. Clinically proven strategies to increase motivation, prompt quit attempts, and encourage treatment use should be key components of tobacco treatment delivery to patients with cancer.

Demographic and Clinical Predictors of Engaging in Tobacco Cessation Counseling at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

PURPOSE

To address challenges promoting tobacco cessation in oncology settings, it is important to understand characteristics associated with patient engagement in tobacco cessation treatment. This analysis examined predictors of participating in at least one tobacco cessation counseling session among patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center's Tobacco Intervention and Psychosocial Support (TIPS) service.

METHODS

Patients with cancer who reported current smoking or recently quitting and referred to TIPS between June 2017 and February 2020 were included in the analysis. Independent variables included sex, race and ethnicity, insurance type, cancer diagnosis (tobacco-related or not), age, nicotine dependence, and cigarettes smoked per day at baseline. The outcome variable was completion of at least one tobacco cessation counseling session among those assessed by the TIPS program. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses tested associations between the independent variables and tobacco cessation counseling engagement.

RESULTS

Of 360 oncology patients referred to the TIPS program, 224 (62.2%) were assessed and 120 (33%) engaged in at least one counseling session. After controlling for sociodemographics and tobacco use, the results demonstrated that patients diagnosed with tobacco-related cancers were 45.3% less likely to engage in the tobacco cessation program compared with those with non-tobacco-related cancers (P = .041).

CONCLUSION

Patients diagnosed with tobacco-related cancers were less likely to engage in TIPS. Additional therapeutic resources may be needed to engage these patients to address potential explanatory factors, such as stigma, guilt, and fatalism. More research is needed to explore the impact of a tobacco-related cancer diagnosis on treatment engagement.

Implementation strategies for integrating tobacco cessation treatment in cancer care: A qualitative study

Purpose

The objective of this study was to determine how to optimize implementation of tobacco cessation treatment interventions in cancer care by (1) investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-level approach to tobacco cessation treatment intervention, (2) identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (3) eliciting additional strategies to improve implementation of the intervention.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with oncologists (n = 15) from one large academic health center in the Southeastern United States. We asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and current practices regarding tobacco use screening and treatment. We also asked about two proposed strategies to support implementation of tobacco cessation treatment: (1) developing a registry of tobacco users in collaboration with the state-run tobacco cessation program, and (2) providing on-site tobacco cessation counseling from trained professionals.

Results

Oncologists saw addressing tobacco use as valuable; however, they felt restricted from consistently addressing tobacco use by multi-level barriers such as workload, electronic health record (EHR) design, patient anxiety, and low self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence. Oncologists responded positively to on-site treatment and felt this strategy would increase treatment accessibility and enhance engagement. Reaction to developing a registry of tobacco users was mixed, with concerns regarding lack of oncologist involvement and patient privacy expressed. Other suggested strategies for supporting implementation of tobacco cessation treatment included reducing referral complexity, establishing financial or quality incentives for oncologists, and leveraging existing EHR tools to facilitate integration of cessation interventions into clinic workflows.

Conclusion

We identified several challenges to implementing tobacco use treatment in cancer care; however, we considered strategies to overcome these barriers that were viewed as feasible and acceptable. Our work highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in implementation efforts. Future work should explore the impact of the implementation strategies identified in this study.

National assessment of recommendations from healthcare providers for smoking cessation among adults with cancer

Cancer survivors benefit from evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. A crucial first step in this process is a clinician recommending that the patient quit smoking. However, contemporary delivery of advice to quit among patients with cancer is not well known. In a cross-sectional analysis of all adult smokers included in a prospective population-representative study of US adults, we analyzed the frequency that patients reported receiving advice to quit smoking from a healthcare professional according to reported cancer history (no cancer, tobacco-related cancer, non-tobacco related cancer history). Among an estimated 28.3 million smokers, 9.3% reported a history of cancer, 48.8% of which were tobacco-related cancers. In general, advice to quit was reported by more (67.8%) cancer survivors than those adults without any cancer (56.0%). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, smokers with a non tobacco-related cancer (0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.83) and those without any cancer history (0.43, 95% CI 0.30-0.63) were both less likely to report being advised to quit smoking than patients with a tobacco-related cancer history.

Applying the lessons of implementation science to maximize feasibility and usability in team science intervention development

The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has generated a substantial body of work detailing characteristics of effective teams. However, that knowledge has not been widely translated into accessible, active, actionable, evidence-based interventions to help translational teams enhance their team functioning and outcomes. Over the past decade, the field of Implementation Science has rapidly developed methods and approaches to increase the translation of biomedical research findings into clinical care, providing a roadmap for mitigating the challenges of developing interventions while maximizing feasibility and utility. Here, we propose an approach to intervention development using constructs from two Implementation Science frameworks, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance, to extend the Wisconsin Interventions for Team Science framework described in Rolland et al. 2021. These Implementation Science constructs can help SciTS researchers design, build, test, and disseminate interventions that meet the needs of both adopters, the institutional leadership that decides whether to adopt an intervention, and implementers, those actually using the intervention. Systematically considering the impact of design decisions on feasibility and usability may lead to the design of interventions that can quickly move from prototype to pilot test to pragmatic trials to assess their impact.

Implementation Science to Improve Tobacco Cessation Services in Oncology Care

Every patient with cancer deserves access to evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions as part of their routine oncology care. The NCI Cancer Moonshot funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) to help establish and/or expand tobacco treatment programs at 52 NCI-designated Cancer Centers. Although this initiative has broadened the availability of tobacco treatment services across US cancer centers, the reach and utilization of these services remains low among patients. To help address the remaining gap between the availability and utilization of evidence-based treatments for tobacco use in the oncologic context, staff and investigators at C3I sites and the C3I Coordinating Center formed the C3I Implementation Science Working Group. The mission of this working group is to bring together clinicians, scientists, and policymakers who share a common interest in implementation science and treating tobacco use in the oncologic context to collaborate on projects aimed at shrinking the practice gap in this area. Through case study examples, we describe how the C3I Implementation Science Working Group is supporting efforts to identify effective ways to increase the utilization of evidence-based tobacco treatments within cancer treatment settings and promote the broader impact and long-term sustainability of C3I.

Using a multilevel implementation strategy to facilitate the screening and treatment of tobacco use in the outpatient urology clinic: A prospective hybrid type I study

BACKGROUND

Urologists frequently treat patients for tobacco-related conditions but infrequently engage in evidence-based practices (EBPs) that screen for and treat tobacco use. Improving the use of EBPs will help to identify smokers, promote cessation, and improve patients' health outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective type I hybrid effectiveness-implementation study was performed to test the feasibility and effectiveness of using a multilevel implementation strategy to improve the use of tobacco EBPs. All urology providers at outpatient urology clinics within the Veterans Health Administration Greater Los Angeles and all patients presenting for a new urology consultation were included. The primary outcome was whether a patient was screened for tobacco use at the time of consultation. Secondary outcomes included a patient's willingness to quit, chosen quit strategy, and subsequent engagement in quit attempts.

RESULTS

In total, 5706 consecutive veterans were seen for a new consultation during the 30-month study period. Thirty-six percent of all visits were for a tobacco-related urologic diagnosis. The percentage of visits that included tobacco use screening increased from 18% (before implementation) to 57% in the implementation phase and to 60% during the maintenance phase. There was significant provider-level variation in adherence to screening. Of all screened patients, 38% were willing to quit, and most patients chose a "cold turkey" method; 22% of the patients elected referral to a formal smoking cessation clinic, and 24% chose telephone counseling. Among those willing to quit, 39% and 49% made a formal quit attempt by 3 and 6 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy that includes provider education and a customized clinical decision support tool can facilitate provider use of tobacco EBPs in a surgery subspecialty clinic.

Behavioral medicine, cancer control, and NCI: reflections on a fruitful past and auspicious future

Cancer prevention and control has benefited substantially from behavioral medicine research over the last several decades. The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, ably led by Barbara Rimer and then Bob Croyle since being established in 1997, has been a primary supporter of this research. NCI has made significant investments in many of the topics featured in this special section and will continue to do so. These include research on basic behavioral processes such as affect as well as optimal approaches to health communication. A key and enduring focus has been the support of behavioral interventions, particularly for tobacco, diet, physical activity, and sun exposure. The success of such interventions will be amplified to the extent that they leverage novel research designs, emerging digital technologies, evidence gleaned from the burgeoning field of implementation science, and lessons learned from greater attention to the impact of health disparities and inequities. Moreover, as the cancer survivor population continues to grow given the rapid development of diagnostic and therapeutic science, it will be even more essential to devote attention to understanding and addressing the health care and other needs of survivors such as cognitive dysfunction and financial toxicity. The field of behavioral medicine should be both applauded for its many contributions to reducing the cancer burden and encouraged to continue developing new research ideas in these critical areas.

Sustainability of Tobacco Treatment Programs in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

The NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) has a specific objective of helping cancer centers develop and implement sustainable programs to routinely address tobacco cessation with patients. Sustaining tobacco treatment programs requires the maintenance of (1) core program components, (2) ongoing implementation strategies, and (3) program outcomes evaluation. NCI funding of C3I included a commitment of resources toward sustainability. This article presents case studies to illustrate key strategies in developing sustainability capacity across 4 C3I-funded sites. Case studies are organized according to the domains of sustainability capacity defined in the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT). We also describe the C3I Sustainability Working Group agenda to make scientific and practical contributions in 3 areas: (1) demonstrating the value of tobacco use treatment in cancer care, (2) identifying implementation strategies to support sustainability, and (3) providing evidence to inform policy changes that support the prioritization and financing of tobacco use treatment. By advancing this agenda, the Sustainability Working Group can play an active role in advancing and disseminating knowledge for tobacco treatment program sustainability to assist cancer care organizations in addressing tobacco use by patients with cancer within and beyond C3I.

Persistent deficiencies in the measurement and reporting of tobacco use in contemporary genitourinary oncology clinical trials

Smoking is a causal or contributory factor for nearly all genitourinary cancers and exerts significant influence on treatment, quality of life, and survival outcomes. In order to understand the influence smoking has on the outcomes of contemporary therapies, pertinent smoking-related data must be systematically collected and report. We sought to determine how often and how rigorously smoking status is collected and reported in publications of clinical trials in genitourinary cancers by conducting a systematic review. Our initial search yielded 622 articles, 354 of which met criteria. The vast majority of included studies (91.8%) did not report any details about trial participants' smoking status. When included, 96.3% of studies reported baseline status qualitatively. No studies used a validated measurement instrument or reported change in participants' smoking status over the study period. Absence of the collection and reporting of smoking-related data precludes further study of how smoking impacts outcomes and highlights an important deficiency in GU oncology clinical trial design.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

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

MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATION

Exposure measurements were based on self-reported questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Concordance Between Electronic Health Record and Tumor Registry Documentation of Smoking Status Among Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with cancer who use tobacco experience reduced treatment effectiveness, increased risk of recurrence and mortality, and diminished quality of life. Accurate tobacco use documentation for patients with cancer is necessary for appropriate clinical decision making and cancer outcomes research. Our aim was to assess agreement between electronic health record (EHR) smoking status data and cancer registry data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all patients with cancer seen at University of Florida Health from 2015 to 2018. Structured EHR smoking status was compared with the tumor registry smoking status for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and Kappa statistics were calculated. We used logistic regression to determine if patient characteristics were associated with odds of agreement in smoking status between EHR and registry data.

RESULTS

We analyzed 11,110 patient records. EHR smoking status was documented for nearly all (98%) patients. Overall kappa (0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79) indicated moderate agreement between the registry and EHR. The sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.84), and the specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.97). The logistic regression results indicated that agreement was more likely among patients who were older and female and if the EHR documentation occurred closer to the date of cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Although documentation of smoking status for patients with cancer is standard practice, we only found moderate agreement between EHR and tumor registry data. Interventions and research using EHR data should prioritize ensuring the validity of smoking status data. Multilevel strategies are needed to achieve consistent and accurate documentation of smoking status in cancer care.

Achieving Equity in the Reach of Smoking Cessation Services Within the NCI Cancer Moonshot-Funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative

Background: Ensuring equitable access to smoking cessation services for cancer patients is necessary to avoid increasing disparities in tobacco use and cancer outcomes. In 2017, the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) funded National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Cancer Centers to integrate evidence-based smoking cessation programs into cancer care. We describe the progress of C3I Cancer Centers in expanding the reach of cessation services across cancer populations.

Methods: Cancer centers (n=17) reported on program characteristics and reach (the proportion of smokers receiving evidence-based cessation treatment) for two 6-month periods. Reach was calculated overall and by patient gender, race, ethnicity, and age.

Results: Average reach increased from 18.5% to 25.6% over 1 year. Reach increased for all racial/ethnic groups, and in particular for American Indian/Alaska Native (6.6–24.7%), Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (7.3–19.4%), and black (18.8–25.9%) smokers. Smaller gains in reach were observed among Hispanic smokers (19.0–22.8%), but these were similar to gains among non-Hispanic smokers (18.9–23.9%). By age group, smokers aged 18–24 years (6.6–14.5%) and >65 years (16.1–24.5%) saw the greatest increases in reach.

Conclusion: C3I Cancer Centers achieved gains in providing smoking cessation services to cancer patients who smoke, thereby reducing disparities that had existed across important subgroups. Taking a population-based approach to integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care has potential to increase reach equity. Implementation strategies including targeted and proactive outreach to patients and interventions to increase providers' adoption of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment may advance reach even further.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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