The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time. RESULTS: The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

Smoking Status, Nicotine Medication, Vaccination, and COVID-19 Hospital Outcomes: Findings from the COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin (CEC-UW) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission. RESULTS: Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

Negative affect and the utilization of tobacco treatment among adult smokers with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the patterns of tobacco treatment utilization among US adult smokers with cancer and the role of negative affect as potential individual-level psychosocial barriers and facilitators influencing quit attempts and tobacco treatment utilization. METHODS: We analyzed data from the adult sample in Wave 1 (2013-2014) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Using structural equation modeling, we examined (1) the association between cancer diagnosis and negative affect (e.g., depressive mood, anxiety, and distress) and (2) the associations between negative affect and smoking cessation behaviors (i.e., quit attempts and tobacco treatment utilization). RESULTS: Compared to adults without cancer, cancer survivors were more likely to have attempted to quit tobacco use in the past 12 months (p < 0.05) and experienced increased negative affect (p < 0.01). However, negative affect appeared to be a psychological barrier to quit attempts, as it was associated with lower likelihood of attempting to quit (p < 0.05). On the other hand, among past-12-month quit attempters, negative affect was related to higher likelihood of using any type of tobacco treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Negative affect may be a potential underlying mechanism in the relationship between cancer diagnosis status and quit attempts and tobacco treatment utilization, influencing the utilization of tobacco treatment among smokers with cancer. Research is needed to investigate whether integrating emotional management in the oncology setting may effectively aid smoking cessation among patients with cancer.

Cost evaluation of tobacco control interventions in clinical settings: A systematic review.

Elucidating the cost implications of tobacco control interventions is a prerequisite to their adoption in clinical settings. This review fills a knowledge gap in characterizing the extent to which cost is measured in tobacco control studies. A search of English literature was conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EconLit, PsychINFO, and CINAHL using MeSH terms from 2009 to 2018. Studies were reviewed by two independent reviewers and included if they were conducted in U.S. inpatient or outpatient facilities and reported costs associated with a tobacco control intervention. They were categorized according to evaluation type, clinical setting, target population, cost measures, and stakeholder perspective. Bias risk was evaluated for RCTs. Seventeen publications were included, representing counseling interventions (n = 8) and combination (i.e., counseling and pharmacotherapy) interventions (n = 9). Studies were categorized by evaluation type: cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 10), cost utility analysis (n = 3) and cost identification (n = 4). The selected studies targeted the following populations: general adults (n = 6), hospitalized/inpatient (n = 4), military/veterans (n = 4), individuals with low socioeconomic status (n = 4), mental health or medical comorbidities (n = 2), and pregnant women (n = 2). Intervention costs included personnel, medication, education material, technology, and overhead costs. Stakeholder perspectives included: healthcare organization (n = 10), payer (n = 8), patient (n = 2), and societal (n = 1). Few studies have reported the cost of tobacco control interventions in clinical settings. Cost is a critical outcome that should be consistently measured in evaluations of tobacco control interventions to promote their uptake in clinical settings.

Modeling rectal cancer to advance neoadjuvant precision therapy.

Progress in rectal cancer therapy has been hindered by the lack of effective disease-specific preclinical models that account for the unique molecular profile and biology of rectal cancer. Thus, we developed complementary patient-derived xenograft (PDX) and subsequent in vitro tumor organoid (PDTO) platforms established from preneoadjuvant therapy rectal cancer specimens to advance personalized care for rectal cancer patients. Multiple endoscopic samples were obtained from 26 Stages 2 and 3 rectal cancer patients prior to receiving 5FU/RT and implanted subcutaneously into NSG mice to generate 15 subcutaneous PDXs. Second passaged xenografts demonstrated 100% correlation with the corresponding human cancer histology with maintained mutational profiles. Individual rectal cancer PDXs reproduced the 5FU/RT response observed in the corresponding human cancers. Similarly, rectal cancer PDTOs reproduced significant heterogeneity in cellular morphology and architecture. PDTO in vitro 5FU/RT treatment response replicated the clinical 5FU/RT neoadjuvant therapy pathologic response observed in the corresponding patient tumors (p < 0.05). The addition of cetuximab to the 5FU/RT regiment was significantly more sensitive in the rectal cancer PDX and PDTOs with wild-type KRAS compared to mutated KRAS (p < 0.05). Considering the close relationship between the patient's cancer and the corresponding PDX/PDTO, rectal cancer patient-derived research platforms represent powerful translational research resources as population-based tools for biomarker discovery and experimental therapy testing. In addition, our findings suggest that cetuximab may enhance RT effectiveness by improved patient selection based on mutational profile in addition to KRAS or by developing a protocol using PDTOs to identify sensitive patients.

Considering Systemic Barriers to Treating Tobacco Use in Clinical Settings in the United States.

The Comorbidity Workgroup of the Tobacco Treatment Research Network, within the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, previously highlighted the need to provide tobacco treatment to patients diagnosed with comorbid physical and mental health conditions. Yet, systemic barriers in the United States health care system prevent many patients who present for medical treatment from getting the evidence-based tobacco treatment that they need. The identified barriers include insufficient training in the epidemiologic impact of tobacco use, related disorders, and pharmacological and behavioral treatment approaches; misunderstanding among clinicians about the effectiveness of tobacco treatment; lack of therapeutic support from clinical staff; insufficient use of health information technology to improve tobacco use identification and treatment; and limited time and reimbursement for clinicians to provide treatment. We highlight three vignettes demonstrating the complexities of practical barriers at the health care system level. We consider each of the barriers in turn and discuss evidence-based strategies that could be implemented in the clinical care of patients with comorbid conditions. In addition, in the absence of compelling data to guide implementation approaches, we offer suggestions for potential strategies and avenues for future research. Implications: Three vignettes highlighted in this article illustrate some systemic barriers to providing tobacco treatment for patients being treated for comorbid conditions. We explore the barriers to tobacco treatment and offer suggestions for changes in training, health care systems, clinical workflow, and payment systems that could enhance the reach and the quality of tobacco treatment within the US health care system.

Effect of an Evidence-based Inpatient Tobacco Dependence Treatment Service on 1-Year Postdischarge Health Care Costs.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) implemented a Tobacco Dependence Treatment Service (TDTS) consistent with the Joint Commission (JC) standards recommending that hospitals screen patients for smoking, provide cessation support, and follow-up contact for relapse prevention within 1 month of discharge. We previously demonstrated that patients exposed to the MUSC TDTS were approximately half as likely to be smoking one month after discharge and 23% less likely to have a 30-day hospital readmission. This paper examines whether exposure to the TDTS influenced downstream health care charges 12 months after patients were discharged from the hospital. METHODS: Data from MUSC's electronic health records, the TDTS, and statewide health care utilization datasets (eg, hospitalization, emergency department, and ambulatory surgery visits) were linked to assess how exposure to the MUSC TDTS impacted health care charges. Total health care charges were compared for patients with and without TDTS exposure. To reduce potential TDTS exposure selection bias, propensity score weighting was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups. The cost of delivering the MUSC TDTS intervention was calculated, along with cost per smoker. RESULTS: The overall adjusted mean health care charges for smokers exposed to the TDTS were $7299 lower than for those who did not receive TDTS services (P=0.047). The TDTS cost per smoker was modest by comparison at $34.21 per smoker eligible for the service. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that implementation of a TDTS consistent with JC standards for smoking cessation can be affordably implemented and yield substantial health care savings that would benefit patients, hospitals, and insurers.

Effect of an Evidence-based Inpatient Tobacco Dependence Treatment Service on 30-, 90-, and 180-Day Hospital Readmission Rates.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking is a risk factor for hospitalization and interferes with patient care due to its effects on pulmonary function, wound healing, and interference with treatments and medications. Although benefits of stopping smoking are well-established, few hospitals provide tobacco dependence treatment services (TDTS) due to cost, lack of mandatory tobacco cessation standards and lack of evidence demonstrating clinical and financial benefits to hospitals and insurers for providing services. METHODS: This study explored the effect of an inpatient TDTS on 30-, 90-, and 180-day hospital readmissions. To carry out this work, 3 secondary datasets were linked, which included clinical electronic health record data, tobacco cessation program data, and statewide health care utilization data. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using inverse propensity score-weighted logistic regression models, with program exposure as the primary independent variable and 30 (90 and 180)-day readmission rates as the dependent variable, and adjustment for putative covariates. RESULTS: Odds of readmission were compared for patients who did and did not receive TDTS. At 30 days postdischarge, smokers exposed to the TDTS had a lower odds of readmission (OR=0.77, P=0.031). At 90 and 180 days, odds of readmission remained lower in the TDTS group (ORs=0.87 and 0.86, respectively), but were not statistically significant. DISCUSSION: Findings from the current study, which are supported by prior studies, provide evidence that delivery of TDTS is a strategy that may help to reduce hospital readmissions.

Evaluation of a Dedicated Tobacco Cessation Support Service for Thoracic Cancer Center Patients.

CONTEXT: Cancer patients' continued tobacco use results in poorer therapeutic outcomes including decreased quality of life and survival. OBJECTIVE: To assess reach and impact of a free, opt-out, telephone-based tobacco cessation program for thoracic cancer center patients. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Comprehensive Cancer Center in Western New York. PARTICIPANTS: Current or recent (within past 30 days) tobacco-using thoracic cancer center patients referred to a tobacco cessation support service between October 2010 and October 2012 at a Comprehensive Cancer Center (n = 942/1313 referrals were eligible for cessation support). INTERVENTION: A free, opt-out, telephone-based cessation service that was implemented as standard of care. Cessation specialists had patient-guided conversations that assessed readiness to quit; methods used in the past provided cessation strategies and worked to set up a quit date. There was an average of 35.9 days between referral and first contact. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Program reach (referral and participation rates) and impact (as self-reported cessation outcomes measured twice after referral). RESULTS: Of 942 patients, 730 (77.5%) referred to and called by a tobacco cessation service participated in at least 1 cessation support call, of which 440 of 730 (60.3%) were called for follow-up and 89.5% (394/440) participated. In total, 20.2% (69/342) of current smokers at referral reported at least 7-day abstinence at follow-up. Among current smokers at referral and first contact, being married (odds ratio [OR] = 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-4.18) and having a lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (OR = 4.05; 95% CI, 1.58-10.39) were associated with quitting at follow-up, after controlling for demographic, clinical, and health behavior characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that 78% of thoracic cancer center patients, if contacted, participated at least once in this cessation support service; for current smokers at referral and first contact, being married and having a lower ECOG performance score were associated with self-reported quitting at follow-up. Other organizations may find our results useful while implementing a systematic way to identify tobacco-using patients as part of routine care and to improve available cessation support services.

Feasibility of Implementing a Hospital-Based "Opt-Out" Tobacco-Cessation Service.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and outcomes of implementing a hospital-based "opt-out" tobacco-cessation service. METHODS: In 2014, the Medical University of South Carolina adopted a policy that all hospitalized patients who self-report using tobacco be referred to tobacco-cessation service. This is a descriptive study of a real-world effort to implement guidelines for a hospital-based cessation service consistent with Joint Commission's standards. Between February 2014 and May 2015, 42 061 adults were admitted to the Medical University of South Carolina Hospital. Eligible current cigarette smokers were referred to the tobacco-cessation service, which consisted of a bedside consult and phone follow-up 3, 14, and 30 days after hospital discharge using interactive-voice-response. The primary study outcomes evaluated the proportions of smokers reached by the bedside counselor and/or phone follow-up, smokers who opted out, and smokers who self-reported not smoking when last contacted by phone. RESULTS: Records identified 8423 smokers, of whom 69.4% (n = 5843) were referred into the service. One full-time bedside counselor was able to speak with 1918 (32.8%) patients, of whom 96 (5%) denied currently smoking and 287 (14.9%) refused counselling. Reach at follow-up was achieved for 703 (55%) smokers who received bedside counselling and 1613 (49%) who did not, yielding an overall follow-up reach rate of 60%. Of those reached by phone, 36.4% reported not smoking (51% vs. 27% for those who did and did not receive bedside counselling, respectively). Intent-to-treat abstinence rate was 13.5% according to the last known smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that an inpatient smoking-cessation service with an "opt-out" approach can positively impact short-term cessation outcomes. IMPLICATIONS: (1) The findings demonstrate the feasibility of implementing an automated large-scale opt-out tobacco-cessation service for hospitalized patients that is consistent with the Joint Commission recommended standards for treating tobacco dependence. (2) Receiving a bedside tobacco-cessation consult while hospitalized increased the use of stop smoking medications and abstinence from smoking after discharge from the hospital. (3) Even in those patients who did not receive a bedside consult, 5% accepted a referral to the South Carolina Tobacco Quitline to get help to stop smoking.

The Association between Smoking Abstinence and Mortality in the National Lung Screening Trial.

RATIONALE: Smoking is the largest contributor to lung cancer risk, and those who continue to smoke after diagnosis have a worse survival. Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces mortality in high-risk individuals. Smoking cessation is an essential component of a high-quality screening program. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of smoking history and abstinence on mortality in high-risk individuals who participated in the NLST (National Lung Screening Trial). METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (NLST). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements included self-reported demographics, medical and smoking history, and lung cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. Cox regression was used to study the association of mortality with smoking status and pack-years. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were examined for differences in survival based on trial arm and smoking status. Current smokers had an increased lung cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR], 2.14-2.29) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.79-1.85) compared with former smokers irrespective of screening arm. Former smokers in the control arm abstinent for 7 years had a 20% mortality reduction comparable with the benefit reported with LDCT screening in the NLST. The maximum benefit was seen with the combination of smoking abstinence at 15 years and LDCT screening, which resulted in a 38% reduction in lung cancer-specific mortality (HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Seven years of smoking abstinence reduced lung cancer-specific mortality at a magnitude comparable with LDCT screening. This reduction was greater when abstinence was combined with screening, highlighting the importance of smoking cessation efforts in screening programs.

Cognitive testing of tobacco use items for administration to patients with cancer and cancer survivors in clinical research.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, there are currently no standardized measures of tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure in patients diagnosed with cancer, and this gap hinders the conduct of studies examining the impact of tobacco on cancer treatment outcomes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate and refine questionnaire items proposed by an expert task force to assess tobacco use. METHODS: Trained interviewers conducted cognitive testing with cancer patients aged ≥21 years with a history of tobacco use and a cancer diagnosis of any stage and organ site who were recruited at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. Iterative rounds of testing and item modification were conducted to identify and resolve cognitive issues (comprehension, memory retrieval, decision/judgment, and response mapping) and instrument navigation issues until no items warranted further significant modification. RESULTS: Thirty participants (6 current cigarette smokers, 1 current cigar smoker, and 23 former cigarette smokers) were enrolled from September 2014 to February 2015. The majority of items functioned well. However, qualitative testing identified wording ambiguities related to cancer diagnosis and treatment trajectory, such as "treatment" and "surgery"; difficulties with lifetime recall; errors in estimating quantities; and difficulties with instrument navigation. Revisions to item wording, format, order, response options, and instructions resulted in a questionnaire that demonstrated navigational ease as well as good question comprehension and response accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) can be used as a standardized item set to accelerate the investigation of tobacco use in the cancer setting. Cancer 2016;122:1728-34. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Smoking may modify the association between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival from ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Tobacco smoking by cancer patients is associated with increased mortality. Less is known of the impact of smoking on recurrence risk and interaction with chemotherapy treatment. We examined these associations in ovarian cancer. METHODS: Patients were identified from the Alberta Cancer Registry between 1978 and 2010 and were oversampled for less-common histologic ovarian tumor types. Medical records were abstracted for 678 eligible patients on lifestyle, medical and cancer treatment, and review of pathology slides was performed for 605 patients. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age at diagnosis, race, stage and residual disease. RESULTS: Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (N=432), current smoking was significantly associated with shorter duration of overall (OS; HR, 8.56; 95% CI, 1.50-48.7) and progression-free (PFS; HR, 5.74; 95% CI, 1.05-31.4) survival from mucinous ovarian cancer only. There was no significant association between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival. However, among patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (N=44), current smokers had shorter PFS (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.36-13.8; N=32 progressed/9 censored events) compared to never smokers, but the HRs were not statistically different across smoking categories (P interaction=0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse associations were observed between smoking status and OS or PFS among patients with mucinous ovarian cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. No significant effect was found from neoadjuvant chemotherapy on PFS overall; however, smoking may modify this association. Although needing replication, these findings suggest that patients may benefit from smoking cessation interventions prior to treatment with chemotherapy.

Exploring Issues of Comorbid Conditions in People Who Smoke.

UNLABELLED: Smoking affects comorbid disease outcomes, and patients with comorbid conditions may have unique characteristics that are important to consider when treating tobacco use. However, addressing tobacco in patients being treated for comorbid conditions is not a consistent practice. Recognizing the need for a "call-to-action" to address tobacco use in people with comorbid conditions, the Tobacco Treatment Network within the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) convened a Comorbidities Workgroup to explore the relationship between smoking and comorbid disease to identify common themes including: the harms associated with continued tobacco use, the frequency of comorbid disease and tobacco use, the potential effect of comorbid disease on the ability to quit tobacco use, the association between tobacco use and suboptimal disease-specific treatment response, and evidence regarding potential approaches to improve addressing tobacco use in patients with comorbid disease. Five candidate conditions (psychiatric, cancer, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and human immunodeficiency virus infected patients) were explored. Across comorbid conditions, smoking adversely affects treatment efficacy and promotes other adverse health conditions. People with comorbid conditions who smoke are motivated to quit and respond to evidence-based smoking cessation treatments. However, tobacco cessation is not regularly incorporated into the clinical care of many individuals with comorbidities. Optimal strategies for addressing tobacco use within each comorbid disease are also not well defined. Further work is needed to disseminate evidence-based care into clinical practice for smokers with comorbid disease and addiction research should consider comorbid conditions as an important construct to explore. IMPLICATIONS: This article explores how physical and psychiatric conditions may interact in the treatment of tobacco dependence, and discusses the need for smoking cessation as a critical component of comorbid condition management. Five common comorbid domains-psychiatric, cancer, pulmonary, cardiovascular, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-are highlighted to illustrate how these different conditions might interact with smoking with respect to prevalence and harm, motivation to quit, and cessation treatment utilization and success.

The biological and clinical effects of smoking by patients with cancer and strategies to implement evidence-based tobacco cessation support.

Tobacco use is an established risk factor for the development of several cancers; however, far less work has been done to understand the effects of continued smoking on cancer treatment outcomes, and structured tobacco cessation efforts are not well incorporated into the standard care for patients with cancer. In this Review we discuss the known biological effects of smoking on cancer cell biology and emphasise the clinical effects of continued smoking in patients with cancer treated with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Although evidence supports the need for inclusion of dedicated tobacco cessation efforts for patients with cancer, clinicians should consider the methods used to provide evidence-based tobacco cessation support and the available resources to deliver and maintain consistent tobacco cessation support. We also address the variables to consider in the design and implementation of a sustainable tobacco cessation programme.

The biologic effects of cigarette smoke on cancer cells.

Smoking is one of the largest preventable risk factors for developing cancer, and continued smoking by cancer patients is associated with increased toxicity, recurrence, risk of second primary cancer, and mortality. Cigarette smoke (CS) contains thousands of chemicals, including many known carcinogens. The carcinogenic effects of CS are well established, but relatively little work has been done to evaluate the effects of CS on cancer cells. In this review of the literature, the authors demonstrate that CS induces a more malignant tumor phenotype by increasing proliferation, migration, invasion, and angiogenesis and by activating prosurvival cellular pathways. Significant work is needed to understand the biologic effect of CS on cancer biology, including the development of model systems and the identification of critical biologic mediators of CS-induced changes in cancer cell physiology.

Automated tobacco assessment and cessation support for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco assessment and cessation support are not routinely included in cancer care. An automated tobacco assessment and cessation program was developed to increase the delivery of tobacco cessation support for cancer patients. METHODS: A structured tobacco assessment was incorporated into the electronic health record at Roswell Park Cancer Institute to identify tobacco use in cancer patients at diagnosis and during follow-up. All patients who reported tobacco use within the past 30 days were automatically referred to a dedicated cessation program that provided cessation counseling. Data were analyzed for referral accuracy and interest in cessation support. RESULTS: Between October 2010 and December 2012, 11,868 patients were screened for tobacco use, and 2765 were identified as tobacco users and were referred to the cessation service. In referred patients, 1381 of those patients received only a mailed invitation to contact the cessation service, and 1384 received a mailing as well as telephone contact attempts from the cessation service. In the 1126 (81.4%) patients contacted by telephone, 51 (4.5%) reported no tobacco use within the past 30 days, 35 (3.1%) were medically unable to participate, and 30 (2.7%) declined participation. Of the 1381 patients who received only a mailed invitation, 16 (1.2%) contacted the cessation program for assistance. Three questions at initial consult and follow-up generated over 98% of referrals. Tobacco assessment frequency every 4 weeks delayed referral in < 1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: An automated electronic health record-based tobacco assessment and cessation referral program can identify substantial numbers of smokers who are receptive to enrollment in a cessation support service.

Reducing tobacco-related cancer incidence and mortality: summary of an institute of medicine workshop.

Tobacco use remains a serious and persistent national problem. Recognizing that progress in combating cancer will never be fully achieved without addressing the tobacco problem, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine convened a public workshop exploring current issues in tobacco control, tobacco cessation, and implications for cancer patients. Workshop participants discussed potential policy, outreach, and treatment strategies to reduce tobacco-related cancer incidence and mortality, and highlighted a number of potential high-value action items to improve tobacco control policy, research, and advocacy.

Overcoming Delays in the Progress against Cancer: Identifying Tobacco Use among Cancer Patients Enrolled in Clinical Trials.

Though smoking causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes and smoking cessation can improve survival, prior literature demonstrates deficits in collecting tobacco use information in clinical trials. Results by Streck and colleagues represent a thorough structured assessment of tobacco use and alternative tobacco product use in patients enrolled in cooperative group trials. Among patients with predominantly non-tobacco related cancers, observations demonstrate that approximately 27% of patients reported using one or more forms of tobacco use after diagnosis. Alternative tobacco use was reported by many patients, including patterns of dual use. Results demonstrate the feasibility of collecting comprehensive structured tobacco use information, and further support the need to address tobacco and cessation even among patients with non-tobacco related cancers. See related article by Streck and colleagues, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32:1552-57.

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.