Effect of Sustained Smoking Cessation Counseling and Provision of Medication vs Shorter-term Counseling and Medication Advice on Smoking Abstinence in Patients Recently Diagnosed With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking. Design, Setting, and Participants: This unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018. Interventions: Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates. Results: Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2). Conclusions and Relevance: Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01871506.

The QuitIT Coping Skills Game for Promoting Tobacco Cessation Among Smokers Diagnosed With Cancer: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although smoking cessation apps have become popular, few have been tested in randomized clinical trials or undergone formative evaluation with target users. OBJECTIVE: We developed a cessation app targeting tobacco-dependent cancer patients. Game design and behavioral rehearsal principles were incorporated to help smokers identify, model, and practice coping strategies to avoid relapse to smoking. In this randomized pilot trial, we examined feasibility (recruitment and retention rates), acceptability (patient satisfaction), quitting self-confidence, and other cessation-related indices to guide the development of a larger trial. METHODS: We randomized 42 English-speaking cancer patients scheduled for surgical treatment to either the Standard Care (SC; telecounseling and cessation pharmacotherapies) or the experimental QuitIT study arm (SC and QuitIT game). Gameplay parameters were captured in-game; satisfaction with the game was assessed at 1-month follow-up. We report study screening, exclusion, and refusal reasons; compare refusal and attrition by key demographic and clinical variables; and report tobacco-related outcomes. RESULTS: Follow-up data were collected from 65% (13/20) patients in the QuitIT and 61% (11/18) in SC arms. Study enrollees were 71% (27/38) females, 92% (35/38) white people, and 95% (36/38) non-Hispanic people. Most had either lung (12/38, 32%) or gastrointestinal (9/38, 24%) cancer. Those dropping out were less likely than completers to have used a tablet (P<.01) and have played the game at all (P=.02) and more likely to be older (P=.05). Of 20 patients in the QuitIT arm, 40% (8/20) played the game (system data). There were no differences between those who played and did not play by demographic, clinical, technology use, and tobacco-related variables. Users completed an average of 2.5 (SD 4.0) episodes out of 10. A nonsignificant trend was found for increased confidence to quit in the QuitIT arm (d=0.25, 95% CI -0.56 to 1.06), and more participants were abstinent in the QuitIT group than in the SC arm (4/13, 30%, vs 2/11, 18%). Satisfaction with gameplay was largely positive, with most respondents enjoying use, relating to the characters, and endorsing that gameplay helped them cope with actual smoking urges. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and retention difficulties suggest that the perihospitalization period may be a less than ideal time for delivering a smoking cessation app intervention. Framing of the app as a "game" may have decreased receptivity as participants may have been preoccupied with hospitalization demands and illness concerns. Less tablet experience and older age were associated with participant dropout. Although satisfaction with the gameplay was high, 60% (12/20) of QuitIT participants did not play the game. Paying more attention to patient engagement, changing the intervention delivery period, providing additional reward and support for use, and improving cessation app training may bolster feasibility for a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01915836; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01915836 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73vGsjG0Y).

Integrating tobacco treatment into cancer care: Study protocol for a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-established risks of persistent smoking, 10-30% of cancer patients continue to smoke after diagnosis. Evidence-based tobacco treatment has yet to be integrated into routine oncology care. This paper describes the protocol, manualized treatment, evaluation plan, and overall study design of comparing the effectiveness and cost of two treatments across two major cancer centers. METHODS/DESIGN: A two-arm, two-site randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial is testing the hypothesis that an Intensive Treatment (IT) intervention is more effective than a Standard Treatment (ST) intervention in helping recently diagnosed cancer patients quit smoking. Both interventions include 4 weekly counseling sessions and FDA-approved smoking cessation medication advice. The IT includes an additional 4 biweekly and 3 monthly booster sessions as well as dispensal of the recommended FDA-approved smoking cessation medication at no cost. The trial is enrolling patients with suspected or newly diagnosed cancer who have smoked a cigarette in the past 30days. Participants are randomly assigned to receive the ST or IT condition. Tobacco cessation outcomes are assessed at 3 and 6months. The primary study outcome is 7-day point prevalence biochemically-validated tobacco abstinence. Secondary study outcomes include the incremental cost-effectiveness of the IT vs. ST. DISCUSSION: This trial will answer key questions about delivering tobacco treatment interventions to newly diagnosed cancer patients. If found to be efficacious and cost-effective, this treatment will serve as a model to be integrated into oncology care settings nation-wide, as we strive to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life for cancer patients.

Readiness of Lung Cancer Screening Sites to Deliver Smoking Cessation Treatment: Current Practices, Organizational Priority, and Perceived Barriers.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening represents an opportunity to deliver smoking cessation advice and assistance to current smokers. However, the current tobacco treatment practices of lung cancer screening sites are unknown. The purpose of this study was to describe organizational priority, current practice patterns, and barriers for delivery of evidence-based tobacco use treatment across lung cancer screening sites within the United States. METHODS: Guided by prior work examining readiness of health care providers to deliver tobacco use treatment, we administered a brief online survey to a purposive national sample of site coordinators from 93 lung cancer screening sites. RESULTS: Organizational priority for promoting smoking cessation among lung cancer screening enrollees was high. Most sites reported that, at the initial visit, patients are routinely asked about their current smoking status (98.9%) and current smokers are advised to quit (91.4%). Fewer (57%) sites provide cessation counseling or refer smokers to a quitline (60.2%) and even fewer (36.6%) routinely recommend cessation medications. During follow-up screening visits, respondents reported less attention to smoking cessation advice and treatment. Lack of patient motivation and resistance to cessation advice and treatment, lack of staff training, and lack of reimbursement were the most frequently cited barriers for delivering smoking cessation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although encouraging that lung cancer screening sites endorsed the importance of smoking cessation interventions, greater attention to identifying and addressing barriers for tobacco treatment delivery is needed in order to maximize the potential benefit of integrating smoking cessation into lung cancer screening protocols. IMPLICATIONS: This study is the first to describe practice patterns, organizational priority, and barriers for delivery of smoking cessation treatment in a national sample of lung cancer screening sites.

Electronic cigarette use among patients with cancer: characteristics of electronic cigarette users and their smoking cessation outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Given that continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases the risk of adverse health outcomes, patients with cancer are strongly advised to quit. Despite a current lack of evidence regarding their safety and effectiveness as a cessation tool, electronic cigarettes (E-cigarettes) are becoming increasingly popular. To guide oncologists' communication with their patients about E-cigarette use, this article provides what to the authors' knowledge is the first published clinical data regarding E-cigarette use and cessation outcomes among patients with cancer. METHODS: A total of 1074 participants included smokers (patients with cancer) who recently enrolled in a tobacco treatment program at a comprehensive cancer center. Standard demographic, tobacco use history, and follow-up cessation outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: A 3-fold increase in E-cigarette use was observed from 2012 to 2013 (10.6% vs 38.5%). E-cigarette users were more nicotine dependent than nonusers, had more prior quit attempts, and were more likely to be diagnosed with thoracic and head or neck cancers. Using a complete case analysis, E-cigarette users were as likely to be smoking at the time of follow-up as nonusers (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-1.7). Using an intention-to-treat analysis, E-cigarette users were twice as likely to be smoking at the time of follow-up as nonusers (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of E-cigarette use observed is consistent with recent articles highlighting increased E-cigarette use in the general population. The current longitudinal findings raise doubts concerning the usefulness of E-cigarettes for facilitating smoking cessation among patients with cancer. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of E-cigarettes as a cessation treatment for patients with cancer.