The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions after cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

patients with cancer who smoke have more side effects during and after treatment, and a lower survival rate than patients with cancer who quit smoking. Supporting patients with cancer to quit smoking should be standard care. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective smoking cessation method for patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched. Included were randomized controlled trials and observational studies published after January 2000 with any smoking cessation intervention in patients with any type of cancer. Result of these studies were evaluated in a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 18,780 papers were retrieved. After duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 72 publications were left. After full text screening, 19 (randomized) controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included. The overall methodological quality of the included studies, rated by GRADE criteria, was very low. Two out of 21 combined intervention trials showed a statistical significant effect. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs and 3 observational studies showed a significant benefit of combined modality interventions (OR 1.67, 95% C.I.: 1.24-2.26, p = 0.0008) and behavioural interventions (OR 1.33, 95% C.I.: 1.02 - 1.74, p = 0.03), but not for single modality pharmacological interventions (OR 1.11; 95% C.I.: 0.69-1.78, p = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

A combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions may be the most effective intervention for smoking cessation in patients with cancer.

Improving referral rates for smoking cessation: A multifaceted intervention aimed at radiation oncologists

Objective

Continuation of smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases the burdensome side effects from cancer treatment, and decreases the chances of cure. Smoking cessation may improve oncological outcomes in cancer patients. This study aims to evaluate if radiation oncologists can be motivated by a smoking cessation awareness intervention to discuss smoking status more frequently and increase the referral rate for smoking cessation-support.Study design and Setting:A multifaceted approach was used to improve awareness: First, current practice was evaluated by a retrospective chart review of 282 patients referred for radiotherapy to ascertain smoking status, discussion of smoking cessation support and referral rates. Secondly, radiation oncologists were interviewed about their motives and barriers to discuss smoking status and smoking cessation support. The results were fed back in a teaching lecture to the doctors involved. Finally, the effect of this smoking cessation awareness intervention was prospectively evaluated in 100 patients.

Results

After the smoking cessation awareness intervention, smoking cessation was more frequently discussed compared to baseline (77% (10/13)) and 39.5% (17/43) respectively. The referral rate for smoking cessation increased from 2.3% (1/43) to 69.2% (9/13).

Conclusion

Without an active smoking prevention awareness policy, referral for smoking cessation support for cancer patients by radiation oncologists is low. A relatively short and simple smoking awareness intervention for radiation oncologist may result in a more frequent discussion with patients about smoking cessation and an even larger increase in referrals for smoking cessation support.