Development of an Intervention Targeted to Patients with Cancers Not Typically Perceived as Smoking-Related.

Smoking by cancer patients impairs treatment outcomes and prognoses across cancer types. Previous research shows greater smoking cessation motivation and quit rates among patients with cancers strongly linked to smoking (i.e., thoracic, head and neck) compared to other cancer types (e.g., melanoma). Therefore, there is a need to increase cessation motivation among patients with malignancies less commonly associated with smoking. Yet, no targeted educational materials exist to meet this information gap. This manuscript describes the development of theory-based self-help educational materials, targeted by cancer type, to increase motivation to quit smoking among patients with cancers not widely perceived as smoking-related (i.e., breast, melanoma, bladder, colorectal, gynecological). Using a three-phase iterative process, we first conducted in-depth interviews with our intended audience (N = 18) to identify information needs and nuanced content. Themes included patients' low knowledge about the connection between smoking and cancer etiology and outcomes; negative affect, habit, dependence, and weight gain as quitting barriers; and a preference for positive and non-judgmental content. Second, content creation was based on interview findings, the scientific literature, and framed following the teachable moment model. Last, learner verification and revisions via interviews with 22 patients assessed suitability of draft materials, with generally favorable responses. Resulting edits included tailoring cost savings to the cancer context, explaining cessation medications, and increasing appeal by improving the diversity (e.g., race) of the individuals in the photographs. The final booklets are low cost, easy to disseminate, and-pending efficacy studies-may expand smoking cessation to a wider spectrum of cancer patients.

Smoking prevalence and association with sociodemographic variables in cancer clinical trial participants.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use (smoking) causes adverse clinical outcomes among patients with cancer, including increased cancer-related mortality. In participants in cancer clinical trials, the prevalence of tobacco use and the factors associated with tobacco use are not well described. METHODS: Data were examined from participants enrolled in SWOG cancer clinical treatment trials between 2016 and 2022 who reported their smoking status at trial enrollment. Baseline variables (smoking status, insurance type, zip code, and demographic factors) were obtained from patient registration forms. Bivariate and multivariable associations were examined via logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 4326 patients enrolled in 29 trials, 48.1% reported currently/previously smoking, including 12.4% currently, 4.9% recently, and 30.7% formerly. Ever smoking was more commonly reported in males, patients aged ≥65 years, patients with Medicaid or no insurance, patients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, and rural patients. Patients of Hispanic ethnicity and Asian and Pacific Islander patients were less likely to have ever smoked. In multivariable regression, patients with lung cancer were most likely to report ever smoking compared to patients with breast cancer (odds ratio, 4.98; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the first comprehensive evaluation of smoking status among trial participants enrolled in National Cancer Institute network group treatment trials, nearly half reported ever smoking and one in six reported current or recent smoking. Smoking was more common among vulnerable population patients defined by demographic and socioeconomic factors. Tobacco use should be routinely assessed and reported in clinical trials to help reduce the negative cancer and overall health effects of persistent tobacco use and to address disparities among patients with cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of point of care smoking cessation interventions in oncology clinics.

BACKGROUND: We examined the cost-effectiveness of providing systematic smoking cessation interventions to oncology patients at point-of-care. METHODS: A decision analytic model was completed from the healthcare payer's perspective and included all incident cancer cases involving patients who smoke in New Brunswick, Canada (n = 1040), cancer site stratifications, and risks of mortality, continued smoking, and cancer treatment failure over one year. Usual care (no cessation support) was compared to the standard Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention, and to OMSC plus unlimited cost-free stop smoking medication (OMSC + SSM), including nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, or bupropion. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per quit (ICQ) and incremental cost per cancer treatment failure avoided (ICTFA). RESULTS: The ICQ was $C143 and ICTFA $C1193 for standard OMSC. The ICQ was $C503 and ICTFA was $C5952 for OMSC + SSM. The number needed to treat (NNT) to produce one quit was 9 for standard OMSC and 4 for OMSC + SSM, and the NNT to avoid one first-line treatment failure was 78 for OMSC and 45 for OMSC + SSM. Both were cost-effective in 100% of 1000 simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high clinical benefits and low incremental costs, systematic smoking cessation interventions should be a standard component of first-line cancer treatment.

Overcoming Delays in the Progress against Cancer: Identifying Tobacco Use among Cancer Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials.

Though smoking causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes and smoking cessation can improve survival, prior literature demonstrates deficits in collecting tobacco use information in clinical trials. Results by Streck and colleagues represent a thorough structured assessment of tobacco use and alternative tobacco product use in patients enrolled in cooperative group trials. Among patients with predominantly non-tobacco related cancers, observations demonstrate that approximately 27% of patients reported using one or more forms of tobacco use after diagnosis. Alternative tobacco use was reported by many patients, including patterns of dual use. Results demonstrate the feasibility of collecting comprehensive structured tobacco use information, and further support the need to address tobacco and cessation even among patients with non-tobacco related cancers. See related article by Streck and colleagues, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32:1552-57.

Universal Tobacco Screening and Opt-Out Treatment Referral Strategy Among Patients Diagnosed With Cancer by Race and Ethnicity.

This quality improvement study examines whether a universal screening and opt-out referral model could promote racial and ethnic equity in access and use of tobacco treatment among patients with cancer.

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.

A quality improvement study on the feasibility and potential benefits of a yogic breathing program for cancer survivors and caregivers during treatment in a lodging facility.

Background: Complementary and integrative health approaches with a focus on relieving side effects of cancer treatment are popular among cancer patients. Previous studies have investigated the combined effects of yoga postures, breathing, and meditation, but the specific effects of the breathing component are under-reported. Our previous studies indicate that yogic breathing can improve salivary biomarker expression related to stress, immune response, and tumor suppression. We aim to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a yogic breathing program in cancer patients and caregivers during the treatment period. Methods: In this quality improvement study, we designed a 20-minute yogic breathing regimen and introduced them to all-site cancer patients and their caregivers during the cancer treatment period at a lodging facility, Hope Lodge in Charleston, SC. All interested participants were included as there were no eligibility criteria set for the study. The availability of the class was advertised via intercom, displays, and word of mouth. Participants were taught five different breathing exercises, and after completion of the exercises in a single session, a self-reported quality improvement questionnaire was administered assessing sociodemographic/clinical factors, expectations about the session, and ratings of satisfaction with the session. Results: During the nine months of the data collection period, 52 participants provided feedback of which patients and caregivers were almost equal numbers. Participants' perception of intervention acceptance, symptom management, satisfaction with the sessions, and future needs for practice indicate that the yogic breathing sessions help improve some of the key symptoms of cancer experience such as stress. Conclusion: Findings indicate that yogic breathing is acceptable to patients and caregivers and may help alleviate some of the side effects resulting from cancer treatment, and the intervention is feasible at lodging facilities during treatment. Currently, the yogic breathing sessions are conducted on a weekly basis by Hope Lodge volunteers trained by the study team.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time. RESULTS: The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

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.