Efficacy of a tobacco quitline among adult cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study (conducted 2010-2013) was to determine the efficacy of two common types of tobacco quitlines in adult cancer survivors who regularly smoked cigarettes. METHOD: Adult onset cancer survivors in Memphis, Tennessee (n=427, 67% female, 60% Caucasian) were randomized either to a Proactive (i.e., counselor-initiated calls) or Reactive (i.e., participant-initiated calls) quitline. Both conditions also received nicotine replacement therapy. The primary outcome was biochemically-verified (i.e., salivary cotinine) smoking cessation. RESULTS: While 12-month self-reported abstinence was consistent with other published studies of smoking cessation (22% and 26% point prevalence abstinence for Proactive and Reactive conditions, respectively), 48% of participants who were tested for cotinine failed biochemical verification, indicating a considerable falsification of self-reported cessation. Adjusted cessation rates were less than 5% in both intervention conditions. CONCLUSION: Our results are consistent with other studies indicating that traditional smoking cessation interventions are ineffective among cancer survivors. Moreover, self-reports of cessation were unreliable in cancer survivors participating in a quitline intervention, indicating that future studies should include biochemical verification. Given the importance of smoking cessation among cancer survivors and low cessation rates in the current study, it may be necessary to design alternative interventions for this population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00827866.

Efficacy of a tobacco quitline among adult survivors of childhood cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this investigation was to determine the efficacy of two evidence-based tobacco quitlines in adult survivors of childhood cancer who regularly smoke cigarettes. METHODS: A total of 519 adult survivors of childhood cancer were randomized to either Proactive + 4 weeks of medication (Counselor-initiated intervention, n = 260) or a Reactive + 2 weeks of medication (Participant-initiated intervention, n = 259) condition. Both conditions received telephone counseling to quit smoking as well as nicotine replacement therapy. The primary outcome was biochemically verified (i.e. cotinine) point prevalence smoking cessation at 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the Proactive + 4 weeks of medication condition self-reported a higher rate of cessation than those survivors in the Reactive + 2 weeks of medication condition at 8 weeks (33.2% vs. 17.0%, p < .001), but cessation rates were not significantly different at 12 months (23.0% vs. 18.7%, p = .29). However, 80% of participants claiming abstinence failed biochemical verification, indicating marked falsification of self-reported smoking status. Adjusted cessation rates were less than 2% in both intervention conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that neither a Proactive + 4 weeks of medication or Reactive + 2 weeks of medication quitline significantly impacted long-term smoking cessation rates. Our results further indicate that self-reports of smoking status are unreliable in survivors of childhood cancer, a population in considerable need of tobacco abstinence. Rates of smoking cessation may be markedly overestimated in studies of childhood cancer survivors that rely on self-reports of tobacco abstinence, and future studies need to include biochemical verification of tobacco status in this population.