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

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: A modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 740 patients completing the C-TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69-7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64-10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: Greater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Changing patterns of cigarette and ENDS transitions in the USA: a multistate transition analysis of adults in the PATH Study in 2017-2019 vs 2019-2021.

INTRODUCTION: The use of cigarettes and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) has likely changed since 2019 with the rise of pods and disposables, the lung injuries outbreak, flavour bans, Tobacco 21 and the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, we applied a multistate transition model to 28 061 adults in waves 4-5 (2017-2019) and 24 584 adults in waves 5-6 (2019-2021), estimating transition rates for initiation, cessation and switching products for each period overall and by age group. RESULTS: Cigarette initiation among adults who never used either product decreased from 2017-2019 to 2019-2021, but ENDS initiation did not significantly change. The persistence of ENDS-only use remained high (75%-80% after 1 year). Cigarette-only use transitions remained similar (88% remaining, 7% to non-current use and 5% to dual or ENDS-only use). In contrast, dual use to ENDS-only transitions increased from 9.5% (95% CI 7.3% to 11.7%) to 20.0% (95% CI 17.4% to 22.6%) per year, decreasing the persistence of dual use. The dual to cigarette-only use transition remained at about 25%. These changes were qualitatively similar across adult age groups, though adults ages 18-24 years exhibited the highest probability of switching from cigarette-only use to dual use and from dual use to ENDS-only use. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of ENDS use among adults remained high in 2019-2021, but a larger fraction of dual users transitioned to ENDS-only use compared with 2017-2019. Because the fraction of cigarette-only users switching to dual use remained low, especially among older adults, the public health implications of this change are minimal.

Equitable implementation of lung cancer screening: avoiding its potential to mirror existing inequities among people who use tobacco.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, but the advent of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography offers a tremendous opportunity to improve lung cancer outcomes. Unfortunately, implementation of lung cancer screening has been hampered by substantial barriers and remains suboptimal. Specifically, the commentary emphasizes the intersectionality of smoking history and several important sociodemographic characteristics and identities that should inform lung cancer screening outreach and engagement efforts, including socioeconomic considerations (e.g., health insurance status), racial and ethnic identity, LGBTQ + identity, mental health history, military experience/veteran status, and geographic residence in addressing specific community risk factors and future interventions in efforts to make strides toward equitable lung cancer screening. METHODS: Members of the Equitable Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Interest Group with the Cancer Prevention and Control Network (CPCRN) provide a critical commentary based on existing literature regarding smoking trends in the US and lung cancer screening uptake to propose opportunities to enhance implementation and support equitable distribution of the benefits of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: The present commentary utilizes information about historical trends in tobacco use to highlight opportunities for targeted outreach efforts to engage communities at high risk with information about the lung cancer screening opportunity. Future efforts toward equitable implementation of lung cancer screening should focus on multi-level implementation strategies that engage and work in concert with community partners to co-create approaches that leverage strengths and reduce barriers within specific communities to achieve the potential of lung cancer screening.

Changing patterns of cigarette and ENDS transitions in the USA: a multistate transition analysis of youth and adults in the PATH Study in 2015-2017 vs 2017-2019.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown how recent changes in the tobacco product marketplace have impacted transitions in cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) use. METHODS: A multistate transition model was applied to 24 242 adults and 12 067 youth in waves 2-4 (2015-2017) and 28 061 adults and 12 538 youth in waves 4 and 5 (2017-2019) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Transition rates for initiation, cessation and product transitions were estimated in multivariable models, accounting for gender, age group, race/ethnicity and daily versus non-daily product use. RESULTS: Changes in ENDS initiation/relapse rates depended on age, including among adults. Among youth who had never established tobacco use, the 1-year probability of ENDS initiation increased after 2017 from 1.6% (95% CI 1.4% to 1.8%) to 3.8% (95% CI 3.4% to 4.2%). Persistence of ENDS-only use (ie, 1-year probability of continuing to use ENDS only) increased for youth from 40.7% (95% CI 34.4% to 46.9%) to 65.7% (95% CI 60.5% to 71.1%) and for adults from 57.8% (95% CI 54.4% to 61.3%) to 78.2% (95% CI 76.0% to 80.4%). Persistence of dual use similarly increased for youth from 48.3% (95% CI 37.4% to 59.2%) to 60.9% (95% CI 43.0% to 78.8%) and for adults from 40.1% (95% CI 37.0% to 43.2%) to 63.8% (95% CI 59.6% to 67.6%). Youth and young adults who used both products became more likely to transition to ENDS-only use, but middle-aged and older adults did not. CONCLUSIONS: ENDS-only and dual use became more persistent. Middle-aged and older adults who used both products became less likely to transition to cigarette-only use but not more likely to discontinue cigarettes. Youth and young adults became more likely to transition to ENDS-only use.

Associations of Daily Versus Nondaily Smoking, Tobacco-Related Risk Perception, and Cancer Diagnosis Among Adults in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Nondaily smoking has become increasingly common among cigarette smokers. Our objective was to determine whether current daily versus nondaily smoking differed by tobacco-related risk perceptions (TRRPs), demographic factors, and cancer history. METHODS: Participants were all adults in Waves 1-3 of the longitudinal cohort Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study who were current smokers at Wave 3 (N = 8307). The primary analysis was weighted logistic regression of daily versus nondaily smoking at Wave 3. TRRP measures were cigarette harm perception, worry that tobacco products will damage one's health, belief that smoking cigarettes causes [lung/bladder/mouth/liver] cancer, and nondaily cigarette harm perception (Likert-type scale). Other measures included demographic factors, other tobacco product use, minor at time of first cigarette, and cancer survivor status (yes/no). RESULTS: Among current smokers, daily versus nondaily smoking was significantly associated with being a minor at time of first cigarette (OR = 1.54, p < .001), TRRPs (OR = 0.83, p < .001; OR = 1.40, p < .001; and OR = 1.17, p = .009 [harm perception, worry, and nondaily cigarette harm perception, respectively]), and interaction between cancer survivor status and belief that smoking causes cancer (p < .001). TRRPs among current smokers did not differ significantly between cancer survivors and respondents without a cancer history. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents with lower harm perception, higher worry, and higher nondaily cigarette harm perception were more likely to be daily versus nondaily smokers. Respondents with higher belief that smoking causes cancer or who were cancer survivors were less likely to be daily (versus nondaily) smokers compared to respondents with low belief and no cancer history. IMPLICATIONS: This study is unique in that it examined associations of smoking cigarettes daily versus nondaily with tobacco-related risk perceptions and cancer survivorship-comparing cancer survivors to those without a cancer history. Given the increasing prevalence of nondaily smoking as compared with daily smoking in the general population, and the prognostic significance of smoking after cancer diagnosis, these findings fill a clinically important gap in the literature and provide a foundation for further research.

Patient Perspectives on the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool for Lung Cancer Screening.

Researchers at the NCI have developed the Risk-Based NLST Outcomes Tool (RNOT), an online tool that calculates risk of lung cancer diagnosis and death with and without lung cancer screening, and false-positive risk estimates. This tool has the potential to facilitate shared decision making for screening. The objective of this study was to examine how current heavy and former smokers understand and respond to personalized risk estimates from the RNOT. Individuals who were eligible for lung cancer screening and were visiting Walter Reed National Military Medical Center were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to assess their experiences with and perceptions of the RNOT. Results were analyzed using template analysis. Participants found their risk of lung cancer death to be lower than anticipated and were confused by changes in risk for lung cancer diagnosis with and without screening. Most participants indicated that the RNOT would be helpful in making screening decisions, despite reporting that there was no maximum risk for a false positive that would lead them to forgo lung cancer screening. Participants provided actionable needs and recommendations to optimize this tool. Risk-based screening tools may enhance shared decision making. The RNOT is being updated to incorporate these findings.

Latent class analysis of use frequencies for multiple tobacco products in US adults.

A persistent challenge is characterizing patterns of tobacco use in terms of product combinations and frequency. Using Wave 4 (2016-17) Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study adult data, we conducted latent class analyses (LCA) of past 30-day frequency of use for 9 tobacco products. One-step LCA with joint multinomial logistic regression models compared sociodemographic factors between users (n = 13,716) and non-users (n = 17,457), and between latent classes of users. We accounted for survey design and weights. Our analyses identified 6 classes: in addition to non-users (C0: 75.7%), we found 5 distinct latent classes of users: daily exclusive cigarette users (C1: 15.5%); occasional cigarette and polytobacco users (C2: 3.8%); frequent e-product and occasional cigarette users (C3: 2.2%); daily smokeless tobacco (SLT) and infrequent cigarette users (C4: 2.0%); and occasional cigar users (C5: 0.8%). Compared to C1: C2 and C3 had higher odds of being male (versus female), younger (especially 18-24 versus 55 years), and having higher education; C2 had higher, while C3 and C4 had lower, odds of being a racial/ethnic minority (versus Non-Hispanic White); C4 and C5 had much higher odds of being male (versus female) and heterosexual (versus sexual minority) and having higher income; and C5 had higher odds of college or more education. We identified three classes of daily or frequent users of a primary product (cigarettes, SLT or e-products) and two classes of occasional users (cigarettes, cigars and polytobacco). Sociodemographic differences in class membership may influence tobacco-related health disparities associated with specific patterns of use.

A comparison of tobacco product prevalence by different frequency of use thresholds across three US surveys.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing changes in tobacco use patterns, "current use" definition and the survey used may have important implications for monitoring population use trends. METHODS: Using three US surveys (2014/15 TUS-CPS, NHIS and PATH), we compared the adult (age 18+) prevalence of four product groups (cigarettes, other combustibles, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarettes) based on three past 30-day frequency of use thresholds: 1+, 10+, and 25+ days. We also examined mutually exclusive single, dual, and polytobacco users as a percentage of total users for each product group. RESULTS: Regardless of threshold or product, the prevalence was higher in PATH followed by NHIS and TUS-CPS, in some cases by large percentages. The differences in cigarette and smokeless tobacco use prevalence in going from the 1+ to 10+ days and to the 25+ days threshold were minimal. Applying different frequency thresholds had the largest impact on other combustibles prevalence, with a 60% reduction with the 10+ days threshold and a 80% reduction with the 25+ days threshold, compared to the 1+ days threshold, followed by e-cigarettes with 40 and 60% reductions, respectively. The proportion of dual and polytobacco users decreased considerably when using the 10+ vs. the 1+ days threshold and polytobacco use was almost non-existent with the 25+ days threshold. CONCLUSION: The estimated prevalence of each tobacco product use depends largely on the survey and frequency of use threshold adopted. The choice of survey and frequency threshold merits serious consideration when monitoring patterns of tobacco use.

Transitions between cigarette, ENDS and dual use in adults in the PATH study (waves 1-4): multistate transition modelling accounting for complex survey design.

INTRODUCTION: Even prior to 2018, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) began to dramatically change the landscape of tobacco products and product use patterns in the USA. METHODS: Using a Markov multistate transition model accounting for complex survey design, transition rates between never, non-current, cigarette, ENDS and dual use states were estimated for 23 253 adult participants in waves 1-4 (approximately 2013-2017) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study. We made short-term transition projections and estimated HRs for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education and income. RESULTS: Cigarette use was persistent among adults, with 89.7% (95% CI 89.1% to 90.3%) of exclusive cigarette users and 86.1% (95% CI 84.4% to 87.9%) of dual users remaining cigarette users (either exclusive or dual) after one wave. In contrast, ENDS use was less persistent, with 72.1% (95% CI 69.6% to 74.6%) of exclusive ENDS users and 50.5% (95% CI 47.8% to 53.3%) of dual users remaining ENDS users (with or without cigarettes) after one wave. Exclusive ENDS users were more likely to start cigarette use after one wave than either never users (HR 25.2; 95% CI 20.9 to 30.5) or non-current users (HR 5.0; 95% CI 4.3 to 5.8). Dual users of ENDS and cigarettes were more likely to stop using cigarettes than exclusive cigarette users (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.6 to 2.3). Transition rates varied among sociodemographic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Multistate transition models are an effective tool for uncovering and characterising longitudinal patterns and determinants of tobacco use from complex survey data. ENDS use among US adults was less persistent than cigarette use prior to 2018.

Stakeholder Research Priorities for Smoking Cessation Interventions within Lung Cancer Screening Programs. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

RATIONALE: Smoking cessation counseling in conjunction with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening is recommended in multiple clinical practice guidelines. The best approach for integrating effective smoking cessation interventions within this setting is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To summarize evidence, identify research gaps, prioritize topics for future research, and propose standardized tools for use in conducting research on smoking cessation interventions within the LDCT lung cancer screening setting. METHODS: The American Thoracic Society convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in tobacco dependence treatment and/or LDCT screening. During an in-person meeting, evidence was reviewed, research gaps were identified, and key questions were generated for each of three research domains: (1) target population to study; (2) adaptation, development, and testing of interventions; and (3) implementation of interventions with demonstrated efficacy. We also identified standardized measures for use in conducting this research. A larger stakeholder panel then ranked research questions by perceived importance in an online survey. Final prioritization was generated hierarchically on the basis of average rank assigned. RESULTS: There was little consensus on which questions within the population domain were of highest priority. Within the intervention domain, research to evaluate the effectiveness in the lung cancer screening setting of evidence-based smoking cessation interventions shown to be effective in other contexts was ranked highest. In the implementation domain, stakeholders prioritized understanding strategies to identify and overcome barriers to integrating smoking cessation in lung cancer screening settings. CONCLUSIONS: This statement offers an agenda to stimulate research surrounding the integration and implementation of smoking cessation interventions with LDCT lung cancer screening.

Cognitive testing of tobacco use items for administration to patients with cancer and cancer survivors in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, there are currently no standardized measures of tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure in patients diagnosed with cancer, and this gap hinders the conduct of studies examining the impact of tobacco on cancer treatment outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate and refine questionnaire items proposed by an expert task force to assess tobacco use. METHODS: Trained interviewers conducted cognitive testing with cancer patients aged ≥21 years with a history of tobacco use and a cancer diagnosis of any stage and organ site who were recruited at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Iterative rounds of testing and item modification were conducted to identify and resolve cognitive issues (comprehension, memory retrieval, decision/judgment, and response mapping) and instrument navigation issues until no items warranted further significant modification. RESULTS: Thirty participants (6 current cigarette smokers, 1 current cigar smoker, and 23 former cigarette smokers) were enrolled from September 2014 to February 2015. The majority of items functioned well. However, qualitative testing identified wording ambiguities related to cancer diagnosis and treatment trajectory, such as "treatment" and "surgery"; difficulties with lifetime recall; errors in estimating quantities; and difficulties with instrument navigation. Revisions to item wording, format, order, response options, and instructions resulted in a questionnaire that demonstrated navigational ease as well as good question comprehension and response accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) can be used as a standardized item set to accelerate the investigation of tobacco use in the cancer setting. Cancer 2016;122:1728-34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy regimens that combine anthracyclines and taxanes result in improved disease-free and overall survival among women with operable lymph-node-positive breast cancer. The effectiveness of concurrent versus sequential regimens is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5351 patients with operable, node-positive, early-stage breast cancer to receive four cycles of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by four cycles of docetaxel (sequential ACT); four cycles of doxorubicin and docetaxel (doxorubicin-docetaxel); or four cycles of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and docetaxel (concurrent ACT). The primary aims were to examine whether concurrent ACT was more effective than sequential ACT and whether the doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen would be as effective as the concurrent-ACT regimen. The secondary aims were to assess toxic effects and to correlate amenorrhea with outcomes in premenopausal women. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 73 months, overall survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year overall survival, 83%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio for death, 0.83; P=0.03) and the concurrent-ACT group (overall survival, 79%; hazard ratio, 0.86; P=0.09). Disease-free survival was improved in the sequential-ACT group (8-year disease-free survival, 74%) as compared with the doxorubicin-docetaxel group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio for recurrence, a second malignant condition, or death, 0.80; P=0.001) and the concurrent-ACT group (disease-free survival, 69%; hazard ratio, 0.83; P=0.01). The doxorubicin-docetaxel regimen showed noninferiority to the concurrent-ACT regimen for overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14). Overall survival was improved in patients with amenorrhea for 6 months or more across all treatment groups, independently of estrogen-receptor status. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential ACT improved disease-free survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel or concurrent ACT, and it improved overall survival as compared with doxorubicin-docetaxel. Amenorrhea was associated with improved survival regardless of the treatment and estrogen-receptor status. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003782.)

Relationship between arm morbidity and patient-reported outcomes following surgery in women with node-negative breast cancer: NSABP protocol B-32.

BACKGROUND: The impact of arm morbidity following breast cancer surgery on patient-observed changes in daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has not been well-studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of objective measures such as range of motion (ROM) and lymphedema, with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the arm and breast, upper extremity function, activities, and HRQoL. METHODS: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-32 was a randomized trial comparing sentinel node resection (SNR) with axillary dissection (AD) in women with node-negative breast cancer. ROM and arm volume were measured objectively. PROs included symptoms; arm function; limitations in social, recreational, occupational, and other regular activities; and a global index of HRQoL. Statistical methods included cross-tabulations and multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: In all, 744 women provided at least 1 postsurgery assessment. About one-third of the patients experienced arm mobility restrictions. A similar number of patients avoided the use of the arm 6 months after surgery. Limitations in work and other regular activities were reported by about a quarter of the patients. In this multivariable analysis, arm mobility and sensory neuropathy were predictors of patient-reported arm function and overall HRQoL. Predictors for activity limitations also included side of surgery (dominant vs nondominant). Edema was not significant after adjustment for sensory neuropathy and ROM. LIMITATIONS: Arm mobility and edema were measured simultaneously only once during the follow-up (6 months). CONCLUSION: Clinical measures of sensory neuropathy and restrictions in arm mobility following breast cancer surgery are associated with self-reported limitations in activity and reductions in overall HRQoL.

CYP2A6 genotype and smoking behavior in current smokers screened for lung cancer.

Functional CYP2A6 genetic variation partially determines nicotine metabolism. In 2005, we examined functional CYP2A6 variants associated with reduced metabolism (CYP2A6*2, CYP2A6*9, CYP2A6*4), smoking history, and change in smoking in 878 adult smokers undergoing lung cancer screening in an urban setting. At one year, 216 quit smoking for more than 30 days while 662 continued smoking. Compared to subjects who smoked 30 cigarettes per day at baseline, the odds of a reduced metabolism genotype was 52% higher in subjects smoking 20-29 cigarettes per day and 86% higher in subjects smoking less than 20 cigarettes per day (p-trend = 0.016). Reduced metabolism genotypes appeared unrelated to quitting. Though related to smoking dose, CYP2A6 may not influence cessation.

Associations of mental health problems with waterpipe tobacco and cigarette smoking among college students.

Associations between the emerging trend of waterpipe tobacco smoking and mental health among college students have not been sufficiently explored. This study analyzed data collected from 152 academic institutions that participated in the National College Health Assessment during the 2008-2009 academic year to examine associations between mental health and waterpipe tobacco smoking among college students (N = 100,891). For comparison, cigarette smoking was also examined. Associations with mental health variables were very strong for cigarette smoking but only moderate for waterpipe smoking. Study implications and limitations are noted.

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.

The Optimizing Lung Screening Trial (WF-20817CD): Multicenter Randomized Effectiveness Implementation Trial to Increase Tobacco Use Cessation for Individuals Undergoing Lung Screening.

BACKGROUND: One-half of all people who undergo lung cancer screening (LCS) currently use tobacco. However, few published studies have explored how to implement effective tobacco use treatment optimally during the LCS encounter. RESEARCH QUESTION: Was the Optimizing Lung Screening intervention (OaSiS) effective at reducing tobacco use among patients undergoing LCS in community-based radiology facilities? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The OaSiS study (National Cancer Institute [NCI] Protocol No.: WF-20817CD) is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type II cluster randomized trial of radiology facilities conducted in partnership with the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base. We randomly assigned 26 radiology facilities in 20 states to the intervention or usual care group. Staff at intervention facilities implemented a variety of strategies targeting the clinic and care team. Eligible patient participants were aged 55 to 77 years undergoing LCS and currently using tobacco. Of 1,094 who completed a baseline survey (523 intervention group, 471 control group) immediately before the LCS appointment, 956 completed the 6-month follow-up (86% retention rate). Fifty-four percent of those who reported not using tobacco at 6 months completed biochemical verification via mailed cotinine assay. Generalized estimating equation marginal models were used in an intention-to-treat analysis to predict 7-day tobacco use abstinence. RESULTS: The average self-reported abstinence among participants varied considerably across facilities (0%-27%). Despite a significant increase in average cessation rate over time (0% at baseline to approximately 13% at 6 months; P < .0001), tobacco use did not differ by trial group at 14 days (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.46-1.99; P = .90), 3 months (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.69-1.99; P = .56), or 6 months (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.65-1.43; P = .87). INTERPRETATION: The OaSiS trial participants showed a significant reduction in tobacco use over time, but no difference by trial arm was found. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03291587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Changing patterns of cigarette and ENDS transitions in the USA: a multistate transition analysis of adults in the PATH Study in 2017-2019 vs 2019-2021.

Introduction: The use of cigarettes and electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) has likely changed since 2019 with the rise of pods and disposables, the outbreak of lung injuries related to vaping THC, flavor bans, and the COVID pandemic. We analyzed patterns of initiation, cessation, and transitions between cigarettes, ENDS, and dual use before and after 2019. Methods: Using the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, we applied a multistate transition model to 28,061 adults in Waves 4-5 (2017-19) and 24,751 adults in Waves 5-6 (2019-21), estimating transition rates for initiation, cessation, and switching products for each period overall and by age group. Results: Cigarette initiation among adults who never used either product decreased from 2017-19 to 2019-21, but ENDS initiation did not significantly change. Persistence of ENDS-only use remained high, with 75-80% still using ENDS only after 1 year. Cigarette-only use transitions remained similar, with about 88% remaining, 7% transitioning to non-current use, and 5% transitioning to dual or ENDS-only use. In contrast, dual use to ENDS-only transitions increased from 9.5% (95%CI: 7.3-11.7%) to 20.1% (95%CI: 17.5-22.7%) per year from 2017-19 to 2019-21, decreasing the persistence of dual use. The dual use to cigarette-only transition remained at about 25%. These changes were qualitatively similar across adult age groups, though adults ages 18-24 years exhibited the highest probability of switching from cigarette-only use to dual use and from dual use to ENDS-only use. Conclusions: Persistence of ENDS use among adults remained high in 2019-21, but a larger fraction of dual users transitioned to ENDS-only use compared to 2017-19. Because the fraction of cigarette-only users switching to dual use remained low, the public health implications of the increased dual use to ENDS-only transition are minimal.

Cigarette and Alternative Tobacco Product Use among Adult Cancer Survivors Enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. METHODS: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017-2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. RESULTS: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. IMPACT: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.