"Pathways": A hope-enhancing intervention for patients undergoing treatment for advanced lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Observational data suggest hope is associated with the quality of life and survival of people with cancer. This trial examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes of "Pathways," a hope intervention for people in treatment for advanced lung cancer. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2022, we conducted a single-arm trial of Pathways among participants who were 3-12 weeks into systemic treatment. Pathways consisted of two individual sessions delivered during infusions and three phone calls in which participants discussed their values, goals, and goal strategies with a nurse or occupational therapist. Participants completed standardized measures of hope and goal interference pre- and post-intervention. Feasibility was defined as ≥60% of eligible patients enrolling, ≥70% of participants completing three or more sessions, ≥70% of participants completing post-assessments, and mean acceptability ratings ≥7 out of 10 on intervention relevance, helpfulness, and convenience. Linear regression fixed effects models with covariates modeled pre-post changes in complete case analysis and multiple imputation models. RESULTS: Fifty two participants enrolled: female (59.6%), non-Hispanic White (84.6%), rural (75.0%), and with low educational attainment (51.9% high school degree or less). Except for enrollment (54%), feasibility and acceptability markers were surpassed (77% adherence, 77% retention, acceptability ratings ≥8/10). There was moderate improvement in hope and goal interference from pre-to post-intervention (d = 0.51, p < 0.05 for hope; d = -0.70, p < 0.005 for goal interference). CONCLUSIONS: Strong feasibility, acceptability, and patient-reported outcome data suggest Pathways is a promising intervention to increase hope and reduce cancer-related goal interference during advanced lung cancer treatment.

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.

Real-world Evidence Comparing Tofacitinib and Vedolizumab in Anti-TNF-experienced Patients With Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) inhibitors are first-line treatment among patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). With time, patients tend to lose response or become intolerant, necessitating switching to small cell biologics such as tofacitinib or vedolizumab. In this real-world study of a large, geographically diverse US population of TNF-experienced patients with UC, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of newly initiating treatment with tofacitinib vs vedolizumab. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using secondary data from a large US insurer (Anthem, Inc.). Our cohort included patients with UC newly initiating treatment with tofacitinib or vedolizumab. Patients were required to have evidence of treatment with anti-TNF inhibitors in the 6 months prior to cohort entry. The primary outcome was treatment persistence >52 weeks. Additionally, we evaluated the following secondary outcomes as additional measures of effectiveness and safety: (1) all-cause hospitalization; (2) total abdominal colectomy; (3) hospitalization for infection; (4) hospitalization for malignancy; (5) hospitalization for cardiac events; and (6) hospitalization for thromboembolic events. We used fine stratification by propensity scores to control for confounding by demographics, clinical factors, and treatment history at baseline. RESULTS: Our primary cohort included 168 new users of tofacitinib and 568 new users of vedolizumab. Tofacitinib was associated with lower treatment persistence (adjusted risked ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 -0.99). Differences in secondary measures of effectiveness or safety between tofacitinib initiators vs vedolizumab initiators were not statistically significant (all-cause hospitalization, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.83-1.84; total abdominal colectomy, adjusted HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.93-3.44;and hospitalization for any infection, adjusted HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.83-4.52). DISCUSSION: Ulcerative colitis patients with prior anti-TNF experience initiating tofacitinib demonstrated lower treatment persistence compared with those initiating vedolizumab. This finding is in contrast to other recent studies suggesting superior effectiveness of tofacitinib. Ultimately, head-to-head randomized, controlled trials that focus on directly measured end points may be needed to best inform clinical practice.

Anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC initiating vedolizumab demonstrated higher treatment persistence compared with those initiating tofacitinib in this real-world evaluation of comparative effectiveness. Ultimately, head-to-head randomized trials that focus on directly measured end points are needed to best inform clinical practice.

The natural trajectory of smoking cessation among cancer patients who want to quit "on their own": A mixed-methods, longitudinal study.

INTRODUCTION: Many cancer patients who smoke cigarettes want to quit. Unfortunately, many of these cancer patients prefer to quit without the aid of pharmacotherapy or behavioral counseling. The teachable moment of cancer diagnosis might still position these cancer patients to make meaningful changes in their smoking behavior, but no study has documented the trajectory of smoking cessation outcomes among cancer patients who want to quit "on their own". This study aimed to fill this gap in the literature. METHODS: In this mixed-methods, longitudinal study, 35 cancer patients who declined tobacco treatment because of the desire to quit "on their own" provided data via three surveys and 1-2 semi-structured interviews. The observation period spanned 60 days. Participants were recently diagnosed at and recruited from outpatient cancer clinics. RESULTS: Participants were mostly female (68.57%), White, non-Hispanic (85.71%), unemployed due to disability (57.14%), and rural residents (54.29%). Across time, 43.76% of participants achieved 50% smoking reduction, 21.88% achieved 3-day floating abstinence, 18.75% achieved 7-day floating abstinence, and 12.50% achieved 30-day point prevalence abstinence. Key themes that emerged from the interviews centered on intention and confidence to quit and types of tobacco treatment used/received. CONCLUSIONS: This study with cancer patients who desired to quit smoking without assistance found some evidence of quit success, but success waned as criteria grew more stringent. Results showed participants' initial intention to quit unassisted was quite strong, as few reported tobacco treatment use. Interventions to increase uptake of evidence-based tobacco treatment among cancer patients is sorely needed. IMPLICATIONS: The preference to quit smoking without assistance is common among cancer patients, even given lack of evidence supporting its effectiveness. This study is the first to explore the trajectory of smoking cessation outcomes among cancer patients who desire to quit without assistance. These data can be used to develop interventions to increase uptake of tobacco treatment and increase quit success among cancer patients.

"Just give it to us straight!": a qualitative analysis of midwestern rural lung cancer survivors and caregivers about survivorship care experiences.

PURPOSE: We assessed the experiences of rural lung cancer survivors and caregivers to understand and identify barriers to posttreatment survivorship care management. METHODS: From May 2021 to June 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposively sampled cohort. Participants were either posttreatment lung cancer survivors (within 5 years of their last active treatment) or caregivers of a lung cancer survivor. Interviews probed participants regarding survivorship care knowledge, implementation, and navigation. Two analysts inductively coded verbatim transcripts and conducted a thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed N = 21 participants: lung cancer survivors (76%) and caregivers (24%). Participants self-identified as Non-Hispanic White (100%), were at least 65 years old (77%), identified as male (62%), and previously smoked ≥ 5 packs over the lifetime (71%). The perspectives of survivors and caregivers were similar; thus, we analyzed them together. Themes related to survivorship care included (1) frustrations and uncertainty regarding unexpected barriers, (2) strategies to improve the delivery of posttreatment information, (3) strategies to remain positive and respond to emotional concerns of survivorship care, and (4) the impact of engaging and patient-centered care teams. CONCLUSION: Given the limited access to lung cancer care resources in rural communities, our findings reveal that following a survivorship care program or plan requires a high level of individual resilience and community/interpersonal networking. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: This study's findings can be applied to improve practice-based care for rural posttreatment lung cancer survivors and provide an impetus for developing tools to assist patient navigation toward community-based supportive care and care management resources.

Corticosteroids but not Anti-TNF Are Associated With Increased COVID-19 Complications in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Immunosuppressed individuals are at higher risk for COVID-19 complications, yet data in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are limited. We evaluated the risk of COVID-19- severe sequelae by medication utilization in a large cohort of patients with IBD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing insurance claims data between August 31, 2019, and August 31, 2021.We included IBD patients identified by diagnosis and treatment codes. Use of IBD medications was defined in the 90 days prior to cohort entry. Study outcomes included COVID-19 hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and inpatient death. Patients were followed until the outcome of interest, outpatient death, disenrollment, or end of study period. Due to the aggregate nature of available data, we were unable to perform multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included 102 986 patients (48 728 CD, 47 592 UC) with a mean age of 53 years; 55% were female. Overall, 412 (0.4%) patients were hospitalized with COVID-19. The incidence of hospitalization was higher in those on corticosteroids (0.6% vs 0.3%; P < .0001; 13.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.8-16.9) and lower in those receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor α therapy (0.2% vs 0.5%; P < .0001; 3.9 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 2.7-5.4). Older age was associated with increased hospitalization with COVID-19. Overall, 71 (0.07%) patients required mechanical ventilation and 52 (0.05%) died at the hospital with COVID-19. The proportion requiring mechanical ventilation (1.9% vs 0.05%; P < .0001; 3.9 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 2.5-5.9) was higher among users of corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with IBD, those on corticosteroids had more hospitalizations and mechanical ventilation with COVID-19. Anti-tumor necrosis factor α therapy was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization. These findings reinforce previous guidance to taper and/or discontinue corticosteroids in IBD.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Anti-TNF Experienced Patients With Ulcerative Colitis Initiating Vedolizumab Versus Tofacitinib.

Background: Primary and secondary nonresponse to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy is common in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), yet limited research has compared the effectiveness of subsequent biological therapy. Objective: We sought to compare the effectiveness of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF experienced patients with UC, focusing on patient-prioritized patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study nested within the Crohn's & Colitis Foundation's IBD Partners and SPARC IBD initiatives. We identified anti-TNF experienced patients with UC initiating vedolizumab or tofacitinib and analyzed PROs reported approximately 6 months later (minimum 4 months, maximum 10 months). Co-primary outcomes were Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains of Fatigue and Pain Interference. Secondary outcomes included PRO2, treatment persistence, and need for colectomy. Results: We compared 72 vedolizumab initiators and 33 tofacitinib initiators. At follow-up, Pain Interference (P = .04), but not Fatigue (P = .53) was lower among tofacitinib initiators. A trend toward higher Social Role Satisfaction was not significant. The remainder of secondary outcomes (PRO2, treatment persistence, colectomy) did not differ between treatment groups. Conclusions: Among anti-TNF experienced patients with UC, Pain Interference 4-10 months after treatment initiation was lower among tofacitinib users as compared with vedolizumab users. Many, but not all, secondary endpoints and subanalyses also favored tofacitinib. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to further evaluate these findings.

Real-World Evidence Comparing Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab in Antitumor Necrosis Factor-Experienced Patients With Crohn's Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with Crohn's disease (CD) lose response or become intolerant to antitumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy and subsequently switch out of class. We compared the effectiveness and safety of ustekinumab to vedolizumab in a large, geographically diverse US population of TNF-experienced patients with CD. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using longitudinal claims data from a large US insurer (Anthem, Inc.). We identified patients with CD initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab with anti-TNF treatment in the prior 6 months. Our primary outcome was treatment persistence for >52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included (i) all-cause hospitalization, (ii) hospitalization for CD with surgery, (iii) hospitalization for CD without surgery, and (iv) hospitalization for infection. Propensity score fine stratification was used to control for demographic and baseline clinical characteristics and prior treatments. RESULTS: Among 885 new users of ustekinumab and 490 new users of vedolizumab, we observed no difference in treatment persistence (adjusted risk ratio 1.09 [95% confidence interval 0.95-1.25]). Ustekinumab was associated with a lower rate of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73 [0.59-0.91]), nonsurgical CD hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio 0.58 [0.40-0.83]), and hospitalization for infection (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56 [0.34-0.92]). DISCUSSION: This real-world comparative effectiveness study of anti-TNF-experienced patients with CD initiating vedolizumab or ustekinumab showed similar treatment persistence rates beyond 52 weeks, although secondary outcomes such as all-cause hospitalizations, nonsurgical CD hospitalizations, and hospitalizations for infection favored ustekinumab initiation. We, therefore, advocate for individualized decision making in this medically refractory population, considering patient preference and other factors such as cost and route of administration.

Similarities and differences across the underlying dimensions of social functioning in rural and nonrural cancer survivors: A mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: For cancer survivors, social functioning greatly influences other quality of life dimensions. While there is potential for differences in social functioning to vary as a function of geographic residence, few studies examine the social functioning of rural cancer survivors specifically. This study aims to help fill this gap. METHODS: This was an embedded mixed-methods study where all participants completed a questionnaire, and some were purposively selected to complete an interview to gather more information about social functioning (ie, social roles, activities, network, support, and constraint). Participants (n = 93; 63% rural) were recruited through a state cancer registry and cancer care facility. Participants were predominately White, non-Hispanic (92.47%), roughly half female (54.84%), and on average, diagnosed in the past two years (SD = 1.68), and 61.45 (SD = 10.87) years old. FINDINGS: Few differences in the social functioning of rural and nonrural participants were found on questionnaires, though rural participants reported larger networks and more overall support. Across groups, common themes in the interview data were the experience of both social support (eg, instrumental support) and social constraint (eg, others minimizing participants' problems or sharing their own negative experiences). CONCLUSIONS: This was the first cancer survivorship study to thoroughly examine social functioning by geographic residence. Rural cancer survivors described some unique strengths, but major group differences were not apparent. All participants highlighted situations when others, even with good intentions, were unhelpful to them. Future interventions to improve social functioning could work to dispel the belief that cancer survivors should handle their cancer on their own.

Proposing a Model of Proactive Outreach to Advance Clinical Research and Care Delivery for Patients Who Use Tobacco.

There are evidence-based treatments for tobacco dependence, but inequities exist in the access to and reach of these treatments. Traditional models of tobacco treatment delivery are "reactive" and typically provide treatment only to patients who are highly motivated to quit and seek out tobacco treatment. Newer models involve "proactive" outreach, with benefits that include increasing access to tobacco treatment, prompting quit attempts among patients with low motivation, addressing health disparities, and improving population-level quit rates. However, the definition of "proactive" is not clear, and adoption has been slow. This commentary introduces a comprehensive yet flexible model of proactive outreach and describes how proactive outreach can optimize clinical research and care delivery in these domains: (1) identifying the population, (2) offering treatment, and (3) delivering treatment. Dimensions relevant to each domain are the intensity of proactive outreach (low to high) and the extent to which proactive outreach activities rely on human interaction or are facilitated by information technology (IT). Adoption of the proposed proactive outreach model could improve the precision and rigor with which tobacco cessation research and tobacco treatment programs report data, which could have a positive effect on care delivery and patient outcomes.

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

INTRODUCTION: This intensive longitudinal study describes key events in the process of smoking cessation after a new head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis. Prior longitudinal studies show some cancer patients quit, while others continue to smoke, but details about the pattern in which these discrete outcomes arise are scarce. This study is meant to help rectify this gap in the literature. AIMS AND METHODS: Participants were 42 HNC patients who reported current smoking at enrollment. Participants were recruited from an outpatient oncology clinic and completed a baseline questionnaire prior to begin a 30-day daily assessment. RESULTS: Few participants (9.52%) achieved 30-day continuous abstinence from smoking. On average, participants reported 9.64 ± 11.93 total days of abstinence. Nearly, all (94.44%, n = 34) participants made at least one quit attempt, with an average of 16.94 ± 11.30 quit attempt days. Fewer participants were able to achieve a 24-hour quit attempt (52.78%, n = 19), with a corresponding average of 5.50 ± 8.69 24-hour days. The median time to first 24-hour quit attempt was 13 days after enrollment. Based on smoking behavioral patterns, participants were categorized into five groups, the most common being "persistent attempters," which involved unsuccessful quit attempts throughout the study. Only 45% of participants (n = 19) used evidence-based treatment, the most common being cessation medication. CONCLUSIONS: This intensive longitudinal study found that cancer diagnosis can spur a lot of efforts to quit smoking. Unfortunately, this study suggests that many quit attempts are short lived, possibly a result of an absence or insufficient use of evidence-based treatments. IMPLICATIONS: For adults who are current smokers at the time of cancer diagnosis, there is a high likelihood of persistent cigarette smoking and use of other tobacco products in the weeks and months after a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, this study shows that while a lot of quit attempts may occur, few are successful, which may be partly attributable to the low use of evidence-based tobacco treatment. Future research with cancer patients should aim to identify predictors of quit attempts and abstinence as well as treatment utilization.

A cluster randomized controlled trial for a multi-level, clinic-based smoking cessation program with women in Appalachian communities: study protocol for the "Break Free" program.

BACKGROUND: The cervical cancer burden is high among women living in Appalachia. Cigarette smoking, a cervical cancer risk factor, is also highly prevalent in this population. This project aims to increase smoking cessation among women living in Appalachia by embedding a smoking cessation program within a larger, integrated cervical cancer prevention program. METHODS: The broader program, the Take CARE study, is a multi-site research collaborative designed to address three risk factors for cervical cancer incidence and mortality: tobacco use, human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and cervical cancer screening. Break Free is a primary care clinic-based implementation program that aims to promote smoking cessation among female smokers in Appalachia by standardizing clinical practice protocols. Break Free includes: (1) implementation of a tobacco user identification system in the Electronic Health Record, (2) clinic staff and provider training on the Ask, Advise and Refer (AAR) model, (3) provider implementation of AAR to identify and treat women who want to quit smoking within the next 6 months, (4) facilitated access to cessation phone counseling plus pharmacotherapy, and (5) the bundling of Break Free tobacco cessation with HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening interventions in an integrated approach to cervical cancer prevention. The study spans 35 Appalachian health clinics across 10 healthcare systems. We aim to enroll 51 adult female smokers per health system (total N = 510). Baseline and follow-up data will be obtained from participant (provider and patient) surveys. The primary outcome is self-reported 12-month point prevalence abstinence among enrolled patients. All randomized patients are asked to complete follow-up surveys, regardless of whether they participated in tobacco treatment. Data analysis of the primary aims will follow intent-to-treat methodology. Secondary outcomes will assess program implementation and cost effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Addressing high tobacco use rates is critical for reducing cervical cancer morbidity and mortality among women living in Appalachia. This study evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of a smoking cessation program in increasing smoking cessation among female smokers. If results demonstrate effectiveness and sustainability, implementation of this program into other health care clinics could reduce both rates of smoking and cervical cancer. Trial registration NCT04340531 (April 9, 2020).

A descriptive study of cervical cancer survivors' persistent smoking behavior and perceived barriers to quitting.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical cancer survivors (CCS) tend to smoke cigarettes at rates much higher than other cancer survivors and women in the general population. However, few studies take a deep dive into the smoking behavior of cervical cancer survivors and none focus on the barriers they experience related to smoking cessation. This study aimed to describe CCS' tobacco use characteristics, quit attempts, and barriers to quit success. METHOD: In a concurrent mixed-method design, 50 CCS (94% White nonHispanic) who were diagnosed in the past 5 years and were current smokers at diagnosis provided data via standardized questionnaire and semi-structured interview. RESULTS: More than three-quarters of participants were current smokers at the time of study participation, 25.6% of whom also reported noncigarette tobacco use (e.g., electronic cigarette, cigar, snus). Seventy percent of participants reported making at least one 24 hr quit attempt postdiagnosis, with 61.5% of current smokers preferring to quit without professional advice or counseling and 51.3% preferring to quit without medication assistance. Four themes emerged regarding barriers to smoking cessation: motivation and readiness; confidence and uncertainty; triggers; and social and environmental factors. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of smoking in CCS is remarkably high, which may partly be explained by negative attitudes toward and low use of evidence-based treatment as well as multi-level barriers to smoking cessation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

The State of the Science on Cancer Diagnosis as a "Teachable Moment" for Smoking Cessation: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Theoretically, a cancer diagnosis has the potential to spur health behavior changes in physical activity, diet, substance use, medication adherence, and the like. The Teachable Moment heuristic is a parsimonious, transtheoretical framework for understanding the conditions under which behavior change might occur, with constructs that include affective, cognitive, and social factors. Application of the Teachable Moment to smoking cessation after cancer diagnosis might aid selection of predictors in observational studies and inform how to optimally design interventions to promote quit attempts and sustain abstinence, as many smoking cessation interventions for cancer survivors do not yield positive outcomes. AIMS AND METHODS: This scoping review of 47 studies that span nearly 20 years of literature examines the measurement of the Teachable Moment constructs and what empirical support they have in explaining cancer survivors' smoking behavior. RESULTS: From this review, it appears the construct of affective response is more widely explored than risk perceptions, social role, and self-concept. Strong, negative affective responses (e.g., anxiety, general distress) may be a powerful contributor to continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis. Risk perceptions may also play a role in smoking behavior, such that never and former smokers espouse stronger perceptions of smoking-related risks than current smokers. Finally, due to a paucity of studies, the role of cancer survivors' self-concept (e.g., identity as a "cancer survivor") and changes in their social role (e.g., employee, athlete) are unclear contributors to their smoking behavior. In summary, the Teachable Moment holds promise in its application to smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis, though more direct research is needed. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review of the scientific literature is the first formal test of the extent to which cancer diagnosis has been explored as a "teachable moment" for smoking cessation, with results that provide insight into issues of measurement precision and breadth as well as empirical support of the "teachable moment" heuristic.

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.

Unmet Care Needs and Financial Hardship in Patients With Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer on Immunotherapy or Chemoimmunotherapy in Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy is now standard treatment for most patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), yet patient supportive care needs (SCNs) on immunotherapy are not well defined. This study characterized the SCNs and financial hardship of patients with mNSCLC treated with immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy and examined the relationship between patient and caregiver cancer-related employment reductions and patient financial hardship. METHODS: Patients with mNSCLC on immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy from a single academic medical center completed the SCNs Survey-34, items indexing material, psychological, and behavioral financial hardship, and the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity. Univariate and bivariate analyses examined care needs, financial hardship, and impact of cancer-related employment reductions on patient financial hardship. RESULTS: Sixty patients (40% male; 75% White, mean age = 62.5 years, 57% on immunotherapy alone) participated. Fifty-five percent reported unmet needs in physical or daily living and psychological domains. Financial hardship was common (33% material, 63% psychological, and 57% behavioral). Fifty-two percent reported hardship in at least two domains. Forty percent reported a caregiver cancer-related employment reduction. Caregiver employment reduction was related to patient financial hardship (68% of those reporting caregiver employment reduction reported at least two domains of hardship v 40% of those without reduction, P = .03) and patient financial distress (mean Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity = 19.6 among those with caregiver employment reduction v 26.8 without, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Patients with mNSCLC treated with immunotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy report multiple unmet care needs and financial hardship. Psychological, functional, financial, and caregiver concerns merit assessment and intervention in this population.