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.

Universal Tobacco Screening and Opt-Out Treatment Referral Strategy Among Patients Diagnosed With Cancer by Race and Ethnicity.

This quality improvement study examines whether a universal screening and opt-out referral model could promote racial and ethnic equity in access and use of tobacco treatment among patients with cancer.

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.

A quality improvement study on the feasibility and potential benefits of a yogic breathing program for cancer survivors and caregivers during treatment in a lodging facility.

Background: Complementary and integrative health approaches with a focus on relieving side effects of cancer treatment are popular among cancer patients. Previous studies have investigated the combined effects of yoga postures, breathing, and meditation, but the specific effects of the breathing component are under-reported. Our previous studies indicate that yogic breathing can improve salivary biomarker expression related to stress, immune response, and tumor suppression. We aim to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a yogic breathing program in cancer patients and caregivers during the treatment period. Methods: In this quality improvement study, we designed a 20-minute yogic breathing regimen and introduced them to all-site cancer patients and their caregivers during the cancer treatment period at a lodging facility, Hope Lodge in Charleston, SC. All interested participants were included as there were no eligibility criteria set for the study. The availability of the class was advertised via intercom, displays, and word of mouth. Participants were taught five different breathing exercises, and after completion of the exercises in a single session, a self-reported quality improvement questionnaire was administered assessing sociodemographic/clinical factors, expectations about the session, and ratings of satisfaction with the session. Results: During the nine months of the data collection period, 52 participants provided feedback of which patients and caregivers were almost equal numbers. Participants' perception of intervention acceptance, symptom management, satisfaction with the sessions, and future needs for practice indicate that the yogic breathing sessions help improve some of the key symptoms of cancer experience such as stress. Conclusion: Findings indicate that yogic breathing is acceptable to patients and caregivers and may help alleviate some of the side effects resulting from cancer treatment, and the intervention is feasible at lodging facilities during treatment. Currently, the yogic breathing sessions are conducted on a weekly basis by Hope Lodge volunteers trained by the study team.

Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources. METHODS: DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes. RESULTS: In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8). CONCLUSION: Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

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.

Relations of Current and Past Cancer with Severe Outcomes among 104,590 Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. METHODS: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. RESULTS: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality were 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.70] and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.96-1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and among those with current cancer (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer, especially among younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among patients with COVID-19; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. IMPACT: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. See related commentary by Egan et al., p. 3.

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.

Association of Pack-Years of Cigarette Smoking With Survival and Tumor Progression Among Patients Treated With Chemoradiation for Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: After 10 pack-years of smoking was initially established as a threshold for risk stratification, subsequent clinical trials incorporated it to identify candidates for treatment deintensification. However, several recent studies were unable to validate this threshold externally, and the threshold for smoking exposure remains unclear. Objective: To estimate the threshold of pack-years of smoking associated with survival and tumor recurrence among patients with head and neck cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-institution, cohort study included patients with nonmetastatic head and neck cancer receiving chemoradiation from January 2005 to April 2021. Data were analyzed from January to April 2022. Exposures: Heavy vs light smoking using 22 pack-years as a threshold based on maximizing log-rank test statistic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional failure (LRF), and distant failure (DF). Results: A total of 518 patients (427 male [82.4%]; median [IQR] age, 61 [55-66] years) were included. Median (IQR) follow-up was 44.1 (22.3-72.8) months. A nonlinear Cox regression model using restricted cubic splines showed continuous worsening of OS and PFS outcomes as pack-years of smoking increased. The threshold of pack-years to estimate OS and PFS was 22. Cox multivariable analysis (MVA) showed that more than 22 pack-years was associated with worse OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.22; P = .01) and PFS (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00-1.89; P = .048). On Fine-Gray MVA, heavy smokers were associated with DF (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.02-2.88; P = .04), but not LRF (aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61-1.87; P = .82). When 10 pack-years of smoking were used as a threshold, there was no association for OS (aHR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.83-1.81; P = .30), PFS (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.78-1.57; P = .56), LRF (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.64-2.21; P = .58), and DF (aHR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.82-2.56; P = .20). Current smoking was associated with worse OS and PFS only among human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive tumors (OS: aHR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.26-6.29; P = .01; PFS: aHR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.22-5.14; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients treated with definitive chemoradiation, 22 pack-years of smoking was associated with survival and distant metastasis outcomes. Current smoking status was associated with adverse outcomes only among patients with HPV-associated head and neck cancer.

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: An Updated Policy Statement From the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Combustible tobacco use has reached historic lows, demonstrating the importance of proven strategies to reduce smoking since publication of the 1964 Surgeon General's report. In contrast, the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), specifically e-cigarettes, has grown to alarming rates and threatens to hinder progress against tobacco use. A major concern is ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. While ENDS emit fewer carcinogens than combustible tobacco, preliminary evidence links ENDS use to DNA damage and inflammation, key steps in cancer development. Furthermore, high levels of nicotine can also increase addiction, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development, and suppress the immune system. The magnitude of long-term health risks will remain unknown until longitudinal studies are completed. ENDS have been billed as a promising tool for combustible tobacco cessation, but further evidence is needed to assess their potential efficacy for adults who smoke. Of concern, epidemiological studies estimate that approximately 15%-42% of adults who use ENDS have never used another tobacco product, and another 36%-54% dual use both ENDS and combustible tobacco. This policy statement details advances in science related to ENDS and calls for urgent action to end predatory practices of the tobacco industry and protect public health. Importantly, we call for an immediate ban on all non-tobacco-flavored ENDS products that contain natural or synthetic nicotine to reduce ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. Concurrently, evidence-based treatments to promote smoking cessation and prevent smoking relapse to reduce cancer incidence and improve public health remain top priorities for our organizations. We also recognize there is an urgent need for research to understand the relationship between ENDS and tobacco-related disparities.

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: An Updated Policy Statement from the American Association for Cancer Research and the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Combustible tobacco use has reached historic lows, demonstrating the importance of proven strategies to reduce smoking since publication of the 1964 Surgeon General's report. In contrast, the use of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), specifically e-cigarettes, has grown to alarming rates and threatens to hinder progress against tobacco use. A major concern is ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. While ENDS emit fewer carcinogens than combustible tobacco, preliminary evidence links ENDS use to DNA damage and inflammation, key steps in cancer development. Furthermore, high levels of nicotine can also increase addiction, raise blood pressure, interfere with brain development, and suppress the immune system. The magnitude of long-term health risks will remain unknown until longitudinal studies are completed. ENDS have been billed as a promising tool for combustible tobacco cessation, but further evidence is needed to assess their potential efficacy for adults who smoke. Of concern, epidemiological studies estimate that approximately 15% to 42% of adults who use ENDS have never used another tobacco product, and another 36% to 54% "dual use" both ENDS and combustible tobacco. This policy statement details advances in science related to ENDS and calls for urgent action to end predatory practices of the tobacco industry and protect public health. Importantly, we call for an immediate ban on all non-tobacco-flavored ENDS products that contain natural or synthetic nicotine to reduce ENDS use by youth and adults who never previously used tobacco. Concurrently, evidence-based treatments to promote smoking cessation and prevent smoking relapse to reduce cancer incidence and improve public health remain top priorities for our organizations. We also recognize there is an urgent need for research to understand the relationship between ENDS and tobacco-related disparities.

The first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mortality, intubation and ICU rates among 104,590 patients hospitalized at 21 United States health systems.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on how patient outcomes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study characterizes changes in mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates during the first 20 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: University of Wisconsin researchers collected and harmonized electronic health record data from 1.1 million COVID-19 patients across 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. The analysis comprised data from 104,590 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) COVID-19 ICD-10 diagnosis during hospitalization and/or a positive COVID-19 PCR test in a 14-day window (+/- 7 days of hospital admission); and (3) health system contact prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mortality (primary), (2) endotracheal intubation, and (3) ICU admission. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The 104,590 hospitalized participants had a mean age of 61.7 years and were 50.4% female, 24% Black, and 56.8% White. Overall risk-standardized mortality (adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status and medical comorbidities) declined from 16% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 16% to 17%) early in the pandemic (February-April 2020) to 9% (CI: 9% to 10%) later (July-September 2021). Among subpopulations, males (vs. females), those on Medicare (vs. those on commercial insurance), the severely obese (vs. normal weight), and those aged 60 and older (vs. younger individuals) had especially high mortality rates both early and late in the pandemic. ICU admission and intubation rates also declined across these 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates improved markedly over the first 20 months of the pandemic among adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients although gains varied by subpopulation. These data provide important information on the course of COVID-19 and identify hospitalized patient groups at heightened risk for negative outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506528 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04506528).

Exact unconditional inference for analyzing contingency tables in finite populations.

With recent developments in computer power the application of exact inferential methods has become more feasible which has resulted in increasing popularity of these approaches. However, there is a lack of such methodology for populations with more complex structure, such as finite populations. When a small sample is drawn from a finite population, the number of individuals with a specific characteristic of interest follows hypergeometric distribution. In order to test for the comparison of two proportions in finite populations we develop an exact unconditional test. We utilize the information gained from the sample to restrict our search for the maximum p-value. Our proposed test has power equal to its competitors while maintains the pre-specified nominal significance level.

Reducing Chemotherapy-Induced DNA Damage via nAChR-Mediated Redox Reprograming-A New Mechanism for SCLC Chemoresistance Boosted by Nicotine.

Up to 60% of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) continue to smoke, which is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Platinum-based chemotherapies, in combination with topoisomerase inhibitors, are first-line therapies for SCLC, with rapid chemoresistance as a major barrier. We provided evidence in this study that nicotine and its major metabolite, cotinine, at physiologically relevant concentrations, reduced the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapies and facilitated chemoresistance in SCLC cells. Mechanistically, nicotine or cotinine reduced chemotherapy-induced DNA damage by modulating cellular redox processes, with nAChRs as the upstream targets. Surprisingly, cisplatin treatment alone also increased the levels of nAChRs in SCLC cells, which served as a self-defense mechanism against platinum-based therapies. These discoveries were confirmed in long-term in vitro and in vivo studies. Collectively, our results depicted a novel and clinically important mechanism of chemoresistance in SCLC treatment: nicotine exposure significantly compromises the efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapies in SCLC treatment by reducing therapy-induced DNA damage and accelerating chemoresistance acquisition. The results also emphasized the urgent need for tobacco cessation and the control of NRT use for SCLC management.

Challenges and Adaptations for Providing Smoking Cessation for Patients with Cancer across Canada during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis can improve health outcomes, but the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly altered healthcare patterns and strained resources, including for smoking cessation support for cancer patients. A Network that included all 13 provinces and territories (jurisdictions) in Canada received funding and coordinated support from a national organization to implement access to smoking cessation support in cancer care between 2016 and 2021, including throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive analyses of meetings between the organization and jurisdictions between March of 2020 and August of 2021 demonstrated that all jurisdictions reported disruptions of existing smoking cessation approaches. Common challenges include staff redeployment, inability to deliver support in person, disruptions in travel, and loss of connections with other clinical resources. Common adaptations included budget and workflow adjustments, transition to virtual approaches, partnering with other community resources, and coupling awareness of the harms of smoking and COVID-19. All jurisdictions reported adaptations that maintained or improved access to smoking cessation services. Collectively, data suggest coordinated national efforts to address smoking cessation in cancer care could be crucial to maintaining access during an international healthcare crisis.

Implementation strategies for integrating tobacco cessation treatment in cancer care: A qualitative study.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to determine how to optimize implementation of tobacco cessation treatment interventions in cancer care by (1) investigating the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-level approach to tobacco cessation treatment intervention, (2) identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (3) eliciting additional strategies to improve implementation of the intervention. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with oncologists (n = 15) from one large academic health center in the Southeastern United States. We asked about their knowledge, attitudes, and current practices regarding tobacco use screening and treatment. We also asked about two proposed strategies to support implementation of tobacco cessation treatment: (1) developing a registry of tobacco users in collaboration with the state-run tobacco cessation program, and (2) providing on-site tobacco cessation counseling from trained professionals. Results: Oncologists saw addressing tobacco use as valuable; however, they felt restricted from consistently addressing tobacco use by multi-level barriers such as workload, electronic health record (EHR) design, patient anxiety, and low self-efficacy for treating tobacco dependence. Oncologists responded positively to on-site treatment and felt this strategy would increase treatment accessibility and enhance engagement. Reaction to developing a registry of tobacco users was mixed, with concerns regarding lack of oncologist involvement and patient privacy expressed. Other suggested strategies for supporting implementation of tobacco cessation treatment included reducing referral complexity, establishing financial or quality incentives for oncologists, and leveraging existing EHR tools to facilitate integration of cessation interventions into clinic workflows. Conclusion: We identified several challenges to implementing tobacco use treatment in cancer care; however, we considered strategies to overcome these barriers that were viewed as feasible and acceptable. Our work highlights the importance of engaging stakeholders in implementation efforts. Future work should explore the impact of the implementation strategies identified in this study.

Associations between cancer diagnosis and patients' responses to an inpatient tobacco treatment intervention.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of a chronic illness, such as cancer may influence health behavior changes, such as smoking cessation. The present analyses examine associations between a cancer diagnosis (i.e., yes or no) and response to an opt-out smoking cessation bedside intervention provided to hospitalized patients. It was hypothesized that patients with a past or present cancer diagnosis would report higher motivation and engagement with quitting smoking, and higher rates of smoking abstinence after hospital discharge, compared to those without a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Chart review was conducted on 5287 inpatients who accepted bedside treatment from a counselor and opted-in to automated follow-up calls from July 2014 to December 2019. RESULTS: At the time of inpatient assessment, those with a past or present cancer diagnosis (n = 419, 7.9%) endorsed significantly higher levels of importance of quitting than those without a cancer diagnosis (3.92/5 vs. 3.77/5), and were more likely to receive smoking cessation medication upon discharge (17.9% vs. 13.3%). Follow-up data from 30-days post-discharge showed those with a cancer diagnosis endorsed higher rates of self-reported abstinence (20.5%) than those without a cancer diagnosis (10.3%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Being hospitalized for any reason provides an opportunity for smokers to consider quitting. Having a previous diagnosis of cancer appears to increase intention to quit and lead to higher rates of smoking cessation in patients who are hospitalized compared to patients without cancer. Future research needs to work toward optimizing motivation for smoking cessation while admitted to a hospital and on improving quit rates for all admitted patients, regardless of diagnosis.

Preoperative contingency management intervention for smoking abstinence in cancer patients: trial protocol for a multisite randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Continued smoking following a cancer diagnosis has substantial health risks including increased overall and cancer-specific mortality, risk of secondary malignancies, cancer treatment toxicity and risk of surgical complications. These risks can be mitigated by quitting smoking. The preoperative period represents a prime opportunity in which to administer robust smoking cessation treatment to both improve health and support and improve surgical outcomes. We will conduct a randomised clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of financial incentives delivered contingent on biochemically verified smoking abstinence (contingency management (CM)) in patients with cancer undergoing surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will take place across two study sites, and participants (N=282) who smoke, are diagnosed with or suspected to have any type of operable cancer and have a surgical procedure scheduled in the next 10 days to 5 weeks will be randomised to receive standard care plus Monitoring Only or CM prior to surgery. All patients will receive breath carbon monoxide (CO) tests three times per week, nicotine replacement therapy and counselling. The CM group will also earn payments for self-reported smoking abstinence confirmed by CO breath test ≤4 ppm on an escalating schedule of reinforcement (with a reset if they smoked). Point prevalence abstinence (PPA) outcomes (self-report of 7-day abstinence confirmed by CO≤4 ppm and/or anabasine ≤2 ng/mL) will be assessed on the day of surgery and 6 months after surgery. The effect of CM on 7-day PPA at the time of surgery and 6-month follow-up will be modelled using generalised linear mixed effects models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been reviewed and approved by the Medical University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board. We will disseminate our scientific results through traditional research-oriented outlets such as presentations at scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04605458.