"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.

Comparison of Implant-Retained Overdenture and Conventional Complete Denture: A Survey Study to Measure Patients' Satisfaction and Quality of Life in Dental School Clinics.

Patient satisfaction and quality of life are integral to assessing oral health care quality. For many Americans still using conventional complete dentures (CD) or Implant Retained-Overdentures (IOD), it remains essential to consider improving their oral health outcomes and quality of life. Due to inexperienced student dentists providing dental care to dental school patients, patient grievances are generally considered a problem. Patient feedback and satisfaction have proven valuable resources for monitoring and improving patient safety. While CD and IOD are the two leading treatment options for edentulism, more comparative studies in the literature need to compare their outcomes in a school setting. The research question that guided this comparative analysis was, "Is patient satisfaction and quality of life affected by the type of prostheses and provider?" A validated questionnaire was mailed to 520 individuals selected from records of patients who had received treatment for edentulous mandible at a student prosthodontic clinic at the [redacted for peer review] from 2014 to 2016 with at least one year of follow-up time. A validated questionnaire for edentulous patients based on the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-19) was used. In addition, information on patients' oral health-related quality of life, including questions related to the edentulous patients' satisfaction with their dentures, was collected. The response rate was 33% (N = 171). The study's findings confirm previous findings, suggesting that IODs may significantly impact oral health-related quality of life. Data show that 76% of the IOD group reported improvement in experience when using the implants to retain the mandibular denture. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the OHIP scores between overall CD and IOD patient groups. Males with IOD had lower physical pain, limitations, and concerns associated with a social disability and handicap domains. Comparing users who had experiences with both treatment options, this study discerned essential characteristics that contribute to increased patient satisfaction with IOD and identified significance in outcomes by gender. These findings guide prosthodontic practitioners' patient care practices and identify a continuing need to discuss CD and IOD treatment protocols within dental school curricula.

Communication with physicians and family about breast Cancer recurrence.

Objective: Adequate physician-patient communication about cancer recurrence is vital to quality of life and to informed decision-making related to survivorship care. The current study was guided by a cognitive-affective framework to examine communication with family and physicians about breast cancer recurrence risk. Methods: A survey of recently-diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer patients in Appalachia investigated physician-patient and familial communication about breast cancer recurrence risk. Results: Over 30% of participants reported not talking to family or physicians about breast cancer recurrence risk. Younger patients reported more conversations, and speaking with physicians was associated with greater perception risk factors associated with recurrence risk. Greater worry about recurrence was associated with more communication with family and plans to talk to family, physicians, and friends about recurrence risk in the future. Conclusion: Additional supports for patients and physicians are needed to improve understanding of breast cancer recurrence risk and risk factors for recurrence. Innovation: Family communication about breast cancer recurrence risk is understudied. The combination of physician and family communication adds novelty to our analysis.

Effective Communication About Lung Cancer Screening Without Iatrogenic Stigma: A Brief Report Case Study Using the Lung Cancer Stigma Communications Assessment Tool of LungTalk.

Introduction: Stigma thwarts progress in lung cancer risk reduction and control and adversely affects patients across the entire lung cancer care continuum. In developing and disseminating patient and public-facing interventions to increase lung screening, we must be cognizant of how communications have the potential for further stigmatization of at-risk populations. Creation of the Lung Cancer Stigma Communications Assessment Tool (LCS-CAT) version 1 was supported by the American Cancer Society's National Lung Cancer Roundtable to help content developers identify, remove, and replace potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from materials designed to engage individuals across the lung cancer continuum. Methods: The LCS-CAT considers language, imagery, and context and was used to audit a public-facing health communication and decision support tool called LungTalk. Results: The audit performed by two behavioral scientists revealed multiple issues in all three areas, and specific feedback and alternatives were identified. Conclusions: Applying the LCS-CAT to LungTalk was a productive process that helped remove potentially stigmatizing language and imagery from this tool designed to engage individuals in the process of making an informed decision about lung screening. To support destigmatization of lung cancer, communication creators should consider a stigma biopsy on all public-facing campaigns for lung screening to help identify, eliminate, and replace messages that could compromise engagement with the lung cancer screening opportunity.

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.

"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.

Getting ready for prime time: Recommended adaptations of an Empathic Communication Skills training intervention to reduce lung cancer stigma for a national multi-center trial.

Building upon prior work developing and pilot testing a provider-focused Empathic Communication Skills (ECS) training intervention, this study sought feedback from key invested partners who work with individuals with lung cancer (i.e. stakeholders including scientific and clinical advisors and patient advocates) on the ECS training intervention. The findings will be used to launch a national virtually-delivered multi-center clinical trial that will examine the effectiveness and implementation of the evidence-based ECS training intervention to reduce patients' experience of lung cancer stigma. A 1-day, hybrid, key invested partners meeting was held in New York City in Fall 2021. We presented the ECS training intervention to all conference attendees (N = 25) to seek constructive feedback on modifications of the training content and platform for intervention delivery to maximize its impact. After participating in the immersive training, all participants engaged in a group discussion guided by semi-structured probes. A deductive thematic content analysis was conducted to code focus group responses into 12 distinct a priori content modification recommendations. Content refinement was suggested in 8 of the 12 content modification themes: tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engagement and feedback from key invested multi-sector partner is a valuable resource for intervention content modifications. Using a structured format for refining evidence-based interventions can facilitate efforts to understand the nature of modifications required for scaling up interventions and the impact of these modifications on outcomes of interest. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05456841.

This study was done to get feedback from people who are involved with patients with lung cancer (PwLCs) including scientists, clinicians, and patient advocates on training in Empathic Communication Skills (ECS). The training is intended to reduce PwLCs experience of lung cancer stigma. The feedback is being used to help prepare for launching the training program in multiple cancer centers across the USA to test how well the training will work to reduce the stigma felt by PwLCs. A one-day, hybrid (in-person and virtual attendees) meeting was held in New York City in October 2021. We presented the original version of the ECS training program to all conference attendees (N = 25) to get feedback on modifications to improve the training program for the larger study planned at many cancer centers. After the training, all meeting attendees participated in a semi-structured group discussion. The content of the discussion was analyzed and sorted into 12 distinct categories that were defined before the meeting. Changes to the content were suggested in 8 of the 12 categories. These changes included tailoring/tweaking/refining, adding elements, removing elements, shortening/condensing content, lengthening/extending content, substituting elements, re-ordering elements, and repeating elements. Engaging and getting feedback from people involved in a topic is a good way to improve content and delivery of training materials.

Lung cancer survivors' views on telerehabilitation following curative intent therapy: a formative qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To inform personalised home-based rehabilitation interventions, we sought to gain in-depth understanding of lung cancer survivors' (1) attitudes and perceived self-efficacy towards telemedicine; (2) knowledge of the benefits of rehabilitation and exercise training; (3) perceived facilitators and preferences for telerehabilitation; and (4) health goals following curative intent therapy. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured interviews guided by Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory and used directed content analysis to identify salient themes. SETTING: One USA Veterans Affairs Medical Center. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 20 stage I-IIIA lung cancer survivors who completed curative intent therapy in the prior 1-6 months. Eighty-five percent of participants had prior experience with telemedicine, but none with telerehabilitation or rehabilitation for lung cancer. RESULTS: Participants viewed telemedicine as convenient, however impersonal and technologically challenging, with most reporting low self-efficacy in their ability to use technology. Most reported little to no knowledge of the potential benefits of specific exercise training regimens, including those directed towards reducing dyspnoea, fatigue or falls. If they were to design their own telerehabilitation programme, participants had a predominant preference for live and one-on-one interaction with a therapist, to enhance therapeutic relationship and ensure correct learning of the training techniques. Most participants had trouble stating their explicit health goals, with many having questions or concerns about their lung cancer status. Some wanted better control of symptoms and functional challenges or engage in healthful behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: Features of telerehabilitation interventions for lung cancer survivors following curative intent therapy may need to include strategies to improve self-efficacy and skills with telemedicine. Education to improve knowledge of the benefits of rehabilitation and exercise training, with alignment to patient-formulated goals, may increase uptake. Exercise training with live and one-on-one therapist interaction may enhance learning, adherence, and completion. Future work should determine how to incorporate these features into telerehabilitation.

Implementation strategies preferred by primary care clinicians to facilitate cancer prevention and control activities.

Key clinical and community members need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability for cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact of nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings. We recruited a convenience sample of 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types from four practice-based research networks in 49 states and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only 'adapting to my practice' was rated higher than a 4 ("moderate") on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics. There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among family medicine clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and identify practical, implementation partner informed implementation strategies.

Using User-Centered Design to Facilitate Adherence to Annual Lung Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study for Intervention Development.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, with the majority of lung cancer occurrence diagnosed after the disease has already metastasized. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography can diagnose early-stage disease, especially when eligible individuals participate in screening on a yearly basis. Unfortunately, annual adherence has emerged as a challenge for academic and community screening programs, endangering the individual and population health benefits of LCS. Reminder messages have effectively increased adherence rates in breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screenings but have not been tested with LCS participants who experience unique barriers to screening associated with the stigma of smoking and social determinants of health. OBJECTIVE: This research aims to use a theory-informed, multiphase, and mixed methods approach with LCS experts and participants to develop a set of clear and engaging reminder messages to support LCS annual adherence. METHODS: In aim 1, survey data informed by the Cognitive-Social Health Information Processing model will be collected to assess how LCS participants process health information aimed at health protective behavior to develop content for reminder messages and pinpoint options for message targeting and tailoring. Aim 2 focuses on identifying themes for message imagery through a modified photovoice activity that asks participants to identify 3 images that represent LCS and then participate in an interview about the selection, likes, and dislikes of each photo. A pool of candidate messages for multiple delivery platforms will be developed in aim 3, using results from aim 1 for message content and aim 2 for imagery selection. The refinement of message content and imagery combinations will be completed through iterative feedback from LCS experts and participants. RESULTS: Data collection began in July 2022 and will be completed by May 2023. The final reminder message candidates are expected to be completed by June 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This project proposes a novel approach to facilitate adherence to annual LCS through the development of reminder messages that embrace content and imagery representative of the target population directly in the design process. Developing effective strategies to increase LCS adherence is instrumental in achieving optimal LCS outcomes at individual and population health levels. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46657.

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND: Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients. METHODS: This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues. RESULTS: Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Smoking Cessation, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Although the harmful effects of smoking after a cancer diagnosis have been clearly demonstrated, many patients continue to smoke cigarettes during treatment and beyond. The NCCN Guidelines for Smoking Cessation emphasize the importance of smoking cessation in all patients with cancer and seek to establish evidence-based recommendations tailored to the unique needs and concerns of patients with cancer. The recommendations contained herein describe interventions for cessation of all combustible tobacco products (eg, cigarettes, cigars, hookah), including smokeless tobacco products. However, recommendations are based on studies of cigarette smoking. The NCCN Smoking Cessation Panel recommends that treatment plans for all patients with cancer who smoke include the following 3 tenets that should be done concurrently: (1) evidence-based motivational strategies and behavior therapy (counseling), which can be brief; (2) evidence-based pharmacotherapy; and (3) close follow-up with retreatment as needed.

Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting.

PURPOSE: Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors. RESULTS: Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%). CONCLUSION: Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care.

Priorities for improvement across cancer and non-cancer related preventive services among rural and non-rural clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: It is not realistic for most clinicians to perform the multitude of recommended preventive primary care services. This is especially true in low resource and rural settings, creating challenges to delivering high-quality care. This study collected stakeholder input from clinicians on which services they most need to improve. METHODS: The authors conducted a survey of primary care physicians 9-12/2021, with an emphasis on rural practices, to assess areas in which clinicians felt the greatest needs for improvement. The survey focused on primary prevention (behavior change counseling) and cancer screening, and contrasted needs for improvement for these services vs. other types of screening, and between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural practices. RESULTS: There were 326 respondents from 4 different practice-based research networks, a wide range of practice types, 49 states and included 177 clinicians in rural settings. Respondents rated the need to improve delivery of primary prevention counseling services highest, with needs for nutrition and dietary assessment and counseling rated highest followed by physical activity and with almost no differences between rural and nonrural. Needs for improvement in cancer screenings were rated higher than non-cancer screenings, except for blood pressure screening. CONCLUSIONS: Both rural and nonrural primary care clinicians feel a need for improvement, especially with primary prevention activities. Although future research is needed to replicate these findings with different populations and other types of preventive service activities, greater priority should be given to development of practical, stakeholder informed assistance and resources for primary care to conduct primary prevention.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Lung Cancer Screening, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening recommend criteria for selecting individuals for screening and provide recommendations for evaluation and follow-up of lung nodules found during initial and subsequent screening. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Lung Cancer Screening.

Ranked determinants of telemedicine diabetic retinopathy screening performance in the United States primary care safety-net setting: an exploratory CART analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness worldwide, despite easy detection and effective treatment. Annual screening rates in the USA remain low, especially for the disadvantaged, which telemedicine-based DR screening (TDRS) during routine primary care has been shown to improve. Screening rates from such programs have varied, however, pointing to inconsistent implementation and unaddressed barriers. This work seeks to identify and prioritize modifiable barriers for targeted intervention. METHODS: In this final phase of an exploratory mixed-methods study, we developed, validated, and administered a 62-item survey to multilevel stakeholders involved with TDRS in primary care safety-net clinics. Survey items were aligned with previously identified determinants of clinic-level screening and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses were used to identify and rank independent variables predictive of individual-level TDRS screening performance. RESULTS: Overall, 133 of the 341 invited professionals responded (39%), representing 20 safety-net clinics across 6 clinical systems. Respondents were predominately non-Hispanic White (77%), female (94%), and between 31 and 65 years of age (79%). Satisfaction with TDRS was high despite low self-reported screening rates. The most important screening determinants were: provider reinforcement of TDRS importance; explicit instructions by providers to staff; effective reminders; standing orders; high relative priority among routine diabetic measures; established TDRS workflows; performance feedback; effective TDRS champions; and leadership support. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of stakeholders involved with TDRS in safety-net clinics, screening was low despite high satisfaction with the intervention. The best predictors of screening performance mapped to the CFIR constructs Leadership Engagement, Compatibility, Goals & Feedback, Relative Priority, Champions, and Available Resources. These findings facilitate the prioritization of implementation strategies targeting determinants of TDRS performance, potentially increasing its public health impact.

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.