Long-term follow-up of smokers following lung and colorectal cancer diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis limits the effectiveness of treatment, increases the risk of cancer recurrence or secondary malignancies, and is associated with poorer quality of life and survival. A cancer diagnosis may provide a meaningful timepoint for quitting, but the prevalence and characteristics of continued smoking through survivorship are poorly understood. METHODS: In the multi-regional Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) cohort, we examined smoking rates and factors associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up among lung and colorectal cancer patients. This paper builds upon previous CanCORS participant data addressing quit rates and associated characteristics at baseline and 5 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: At long-term follow-up (median 7.3 years post-diagnosis [IQR = 5.9-8.7]), 16.7% of lung cancer and 11.6% of colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke combustible cigarettes. Factors independently associated with continued smoking at long-term follow-up included being male, younger, not married or partnered, having Medicare, Medicaid/other public or no insurance, more depression symptoms, smoking more cigarettes per day, and having a history of lung disease (p < .05). Continued smoking did not vary by lung vs. colorectal cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Of active smokers at the time of diagnosis, an important minority of lung and colorectal cancer survivors continued to smoke well into survivorship. Understanding characteristics associated with continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis may help inform the development of tobacco treatment programs for cancer patients and survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: While addressing smoking cessation at the time of diagnosis is critical to ensure better long-term treatment outcomes and quality of life, it is essential to continue smoking cessation discussions and efforts throughout care and survivorship.

Perceptions of somatic and affective symptoms and psychosocial care utilization in younger and older survivors of lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Rates of depression identification in oncology settings and referral to psychosocial services remain low. Patients with lung cancer face an elevated risk of depression relative to patients with other cancers. This study explored perceptions of somatic and affective symptoms and psychosocial care utilization among younger and older lung cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 adults at two academic medical centers in Boston, MA, who had received a lung cancer diagnosis in the past 24 months. A semi-structured interview guide was used to assess experiences with, and perceptions of, depression symptoms and psychosocial services. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify themes. We also explored differences between younger (<65years; N=9) and older (>65years; N=11) patients. RESULTS: Participants commonly described somatic symptoms (i.e., changes in appetite, sleep, or energy levels) and affective symptoms (i.e., worry, fear, sadness) as side effects of cancer treatment. Older participants more commonly contextualized these symptoms with information about how they impacted daily life. Both younger and older participants faced barriers to accessing psychosocial services, with older adults more commonly referencing stigma of service referral and utilization. DISCUSSION: Patients with lung cancer associated both somatic and affective symptoms with their cancer and its treatment, with age differences in how symptoms were described and how psychosocial referrals may be perceived. More systematic integration of psychosocial care into cancer care may help to increase the identification of depression in lung cancer and reduce barriers to psychosocial service utilization.

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.

Fear of recurrence or progression as a link between somatic symptoms and perceived stress among cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Many cancer survivors report experiencing somatic symptoms as well as elevated stress. Theoretical models have suggested that physical symptoms generate subjective stress via fears of recurrence or progression. To date, this indirect effect has not been established empirically. This study aimed to provide preliminary evidence as to whether fear of recurrence or progression is an intermediary between somatic symptom severity and perceived stress among heterogeneous cancer survivors. METHODS: Adult cancer survivors (N = 67; median 2.4 years since diagnosis; 34% male) presenting at a hospital survivorship clinic completed measures assessing somatic symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15)), perceived stress (four-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4)), and fear of recurrence or progression (Assessment of Survivor Concerns (ASC)). Interrelatedness among variables was assessed using Pearson correlations. Indirect effects were modeled using 5000-iteration bootstrapping. RESULTS: Survivors endorsed a range of somatic symptom severity (29% minimal, 39% low, 18% medium, and 14% high). Somatic symptoms, perceived stress, and fear of recurrence or progression were all significantly positively correlated (rs 0.29 to 0.47). Controlling for time since diagnosis, there was a significant indirect effect of somatic symptom severity on stress via fear of recurrence or progression [B = 0.06, SE = 0.04 (95% CI 0.01-0.16)]. The model accounted for more than one third of the variance in perceived stress [R 2 = 0.35, F(3,54) = 9.59, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors with greater somatic symptoms tended to report higher levels of stress, due in part to elevated fears of recurrence or progression. Our findings support concerns about recurrence or progression as a mechanism underlying stress states in cancer survivors. Efforts to assist survivors with stress management should teach strategies for managing cancer-related uncertainties stemming from somatic symptoms.

Cost-effectiveness of Implementing Smoking Cessation Interventions for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Guidelines recommend cancer care clinicians offer smoking cessation treatment. Cost analyses will help stakeholders understand and plan for implementation of cessation programs. Objective: To estimate the incremental cost per quit (ICQ) of adopting an intensive smoking cessation intervention among patients undergoing treatment at cancer care clinics, from a clinic perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation, a secondary analysis of the Smokefree Support Study (conducted 2013-2018; completed 2021), used microcosting methods and sensitivity analyses to estimate the ICQ of the interventions. Participants included patients undergoing treatment for a broad range of solid tumors and lymphomas who reported current smoking and were receiving care at cancer care clinics within 2 academic medical centers. Exposures: Intensive smoking cessation treatment (up to 11 counseling sessions with free medications), standard of care (up to 4 counseling sessions with medication advice), or usual care (referral to the state quitline). Main Outcomes and Measures: Total costs, component-specific costs, and the ICQ of the intensive smoking cessation treatment relative to both standard of care (comparator in the parent randomized trial) and usual care (a common comparator outside this trial) were calculated. Overall and post hoc site-specific estimates are provided. Because usual care was not included in the parent trial, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how assumptions about usual care quit rates affected study outcomes (ie, base case [from a published smoking cessation trial among patients with thoracic cancer], best case, and conservative case scenarios). Results: The per-patient costs of offering intensive smoking cessation treatment, standard of care, and usual care were $1989, $1482, and $0, respectively. For intensive treatment, the dominant costs were treatment (35%), staff supervision (26%), and patient enrollment (24%). Relative to standard of care, intensive treatment had an overall ICQ of $3906, and one site had an ICQ of $2892. Relative to usual care, intensive treatment had an ICQ of $9866 overall (base case), although at one site, the ICQ was $5408 (base case) and $3786 (best case). Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation study, implementation of an intensive smoking cessation treatment intervention was moderately to highly cost-effective, depending on existing smoking cessation services in place.

Preference for Telehealth Sustained Over Three Months at an Outpatient Center for Integrative Medicine.

BACKGROUND: Integrative medicine is a key framework for the treatment of chronic medical conditions, particularly chronic pain conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted rapid implementation of telehealth services. OBJECTIVE: We present outcomes of a complete and rapid transition to telehealth visits at an outpatient integrative medicine center in the Southeastern United States. METHOD: Patients and administrative staff took surveys comparing telehealth to in-person visits within four weeks of our clinic's transition to telehealth and three months later. Beginning four weeks after the clinic's telehealth conversion in March 2020, patients who had a telehealth visit at the center completed a survey about their telehealth experience and another survey three months later. RESULTS: Patient quality judgements significantly favored telehealth at baseline, B = .77 [0.29 - 1.25], SE = .25, t(712) = 3.15, p = .002, and increased at three months, B = .27 [-0.03 - 0.57], SE = .15, t(712) = 1.76, p = .079. Telehealth technology usability and distance from the center predicted patient ratings of telehealth favorability. Providers favored in-person visits more than patients, B = -1.00 [-1.56 - -0.44], SE = .29, t(799) = -3.48, p < .001, though did not favor either in-person or telehealth more than the other. Patient discrete choice between telehealth and in-person visits was split at baseline (in-person: n = 86 [54%]; telehealth: n = 73 [46%]), but favored telehealth at three months (in-person: n = 17 [40%]; telehealth: n = 26 [60%]). Overall, discrete choice favored telehealth at follow-up across providers and patients, OR = 2.69 [.1.18 - 6.14], z = 2.36, p = .018. Major qualitative themes highlight telehealth as acceptable and convenient, with some challenges including technological issues. Some felt a loss of interpersonal connection during telehealth visits, while others felt the opposite. CONCLUSION: We report converging mixed-method data on the successful and sustained implementation of telehealth with associated policy and clinical implications during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.