Search

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.

Purpose: While stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) can reduce tumor volumes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), little is known regarding the immunomodulatory effects of high-dose radiation in the tumor microenvironment. The main objectives of this pilot study were to assess the safety and feasibility of nephrectomy following SBRT treatment of patients with mRCC and analyze the immunological impact of high-dose radiation.Experimental Design: Human RCC cell lines were irradiated and evaluated for immunomodulation. In a single-arm feasibility study, patients with mRCC were treated with 15 Gray SBRT at the primary lesion in a single fraction followed 4 weeks later by cytoreductive nephrectomy. RCC specimens were analyzed for tumor-associated antigen (TAA) expression and T-cell infiltration. The trial has reached accrual (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01892930).Results: RCC cells treated in vitro with radiation had increased TAA expression compared with untreated tumor cells. Fourteen patients received SBRT followed by surgery, and treatment was well-tolerated. SBRT-treated tumors had increased expression of the immunomodulatory molecule calreticulin and TAA (CA9, 5T4, NY-ESO-1, and MUC-1). Ki67+ -proliferating CD8+ T cells and FOXP3+ cells were increased in SBRT-treated patient specimens in tumors and at the tumor–stromal interface compared with archived patient specimens.Conclusions: It is feasible to perform nephrectomy following SBRT with acceptable toxicity. Following SBRT, patient RCC tumors have increased expression of calreticulin, TAA, as well as a higher percentage of proliferating T cells compared with archived RCC tumors. Collectively, these studies provide evidence of immunomodulation following SBRT in mRCC. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5055–65. ©2017 AACR.

Supplementary figure S3 shows gating strategy and isotype staining of live tumor cells used for patient samples.

Supplementary table 3 shows immunohistochemical antibodies and dilutions.

There is strong evidence that cigarette smoking causes adverse outcomes in people with cancer. However, more research is needed regarding those effects and the effects of alternative tobacco products and of secondhand smoke, the effects of cessation (before diagnosis, during treatment, or during survivorship), the biologic mechanisms, and optimal strategies for tobacco dependence treatment in oncology. Fundamentally, tobacco is an important source of variation in clinical treatment trials. Nevertheless, tobacco use assessment has not been uniform in clinical trials. Progress has been impeded by a lack of consensus regarding tobacco use assessment suitable for cancer patients. The NCI-AACR Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Assessment Task Force identified priority research areas and developed recommendations for assessment items and timing of assessment in cancer research. A cognitive interview study was conducted with 30 cancer patients at the NIH Clinical Center to evaluate and improve the measurement items. The resulting Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) includes “Core” items for minimal assessment of tobacco use at initial and follow-up time points, and an “Extension” set. Domains include the following: cigarette and other tobacco use status, intensity, and past use; use relative to cancer diagnosis and treatment; cessation approaches and history; and secondhand smoke exposure. The Task Force recommends that assessment occur at study entry and, at a minimum, at the end of protocol therapy in clinical trials. Broad adoption of the recommended measures and timing protocol, and pursuit of the recommended research priorities, will help us to achieve a clearer understanding of the significance of tobacco use and cessation for cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res; 22(8); 1907–13. ©2016 AACR.

This file contains the NCI-AACR tobacco use questionnaire and notes about its use.

This file contains detailed information about the methodology.

Introduction: Screening for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure, coupled with engaged decision making to prioritize cancer treatment in parallel with reducing risk of exposure and infection, is crucial in the management of COVID-19 during cancer treatment. After two reported case studies of imaging findings during daily computed tomography (CT)-based image-guided radio-therapy (RT) scans, a call for submission of anonymized case reports was published with the objective of rapidly determining if there was a correlation between the onset of new pulmonary infiltrates found during RT and COVID-19. We hereby report the results of the aggregate analysis. Methods: Data of deidentified case reports for patients who developed biochemically confirmed COVID-19 during RT were submitted through an online portal. Information requested included a patient's sex, age, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 diagnosis and outcome. Coplanar CT-based imaging was requested to reveal the presence or absence of ground-glass opacities or infiltrates. Results: A total of seven reports were submitted from Turkey, Spain, Belgium, Egypt, and the United States. Results and imaging from the patients reported by Suppli et al. and McGinnis et al. were included for a total of nine patients for analysis. All patients were confirmed COVID-19 positive using polymerase chain reaction-based methods or nasopharyngeal swabs. Of the nine patients analyzed, abnormalities consistent with ground-glass opacities or in- filtrates were observed in eight patients. Conclusions: This is the largest case series revealing the potential use of CT-based image guidance during RT as a tool for identifying patients who need further workup for COVID-19. Considerations for reviewing image guidance for new pulmonary infiltrates and immediate COVID-19 testing in patients who develop new infiltrates even without COVID-19 symptoms are strongly encouraged. (c) 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PURPOSE: More than half of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) experience a delay initiating guideline-adherent postoperative radiation therapy (PORT), contributing to excess mortality and racial disparities in survival. However, interventions to improve the delivery of timely, equitable PORT among patients with HNSCC are lacking. This study (1) describes the development of NDURE (Navigation for Disparities and Untimely Radiation thErapy), a navigation-based multilevel intervention (MLI) to improve guideline-adherent PORT and (2) evaluates its feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. METHODS: NDURE was developed using the six steps of intervention mapping (IM). Subsequently, NDURE was evaluated by enrolling consecutive patients with locally advanced HNSCC undergoing surgery and PORT (n = 15) into a single-arm clinical trial with a mixed-methods approach to process evaluation. RESULTS: NDURE is a navigation-based MLI targeting barriers to timely, guideline-adherent PORT at the patient, healthcare team, and organizational levels. NDURE is delivered via three in-person navigation sessions anchored to case identification and surgical care transitions. Intervention components include the following: (1) patient education, (2) travel support, (3) a standardized process for initiating the discussion of expectations for PORT, (4) PORT care plans, (5) referral tracking and follow-up, and (6) organizational restructuring. NDURE was feasible, as judged by accrual (88% of eligible patients [100% Blacks] enrolled) and dropout (n = 0). One hundred percent of patients reported moderate or strong agreement that NDURE helped solve challenges starting PORT; 86% were highly likely to recommend NDURE. The rate of timely, guideline-adherent PORT was 86% overall and 100% for Black patients. CONCLUSION: NDURE is a navigation-based MLI that is feasible, is acceptable, and has the potential to improve the timely, equitable, guideline-adherent PORT.

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.

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, This study examined responses to an inpatient tobacco treatment program between cancer and non‐cancer patients admitted to a large hospital. Results showed that during the time of hospitalization, patients with cancer felt that quitting smoking was more important and were more likely to be given medications to quit at discharge. One month after discharge, patients with cancer were more likely to have quit.

PURPOSE: Delays initiating guideline-adherent postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are common, contribute to excess mortality, and are a modifiable target for improving survival. However, the barriers that prevent the delivery of timely, guideline-adherent PORT remain unknown. This study aims to identify the multilevel barriers to timely, guideline-adherent PORT and organize them into a conceptual model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with key informants were conducted with a purposive sample of patients with HNSCC and oncology providers across diverse practice settings until thematic saturation (n = 45). Thematic analysis was performed to identify the themes that explain barriers to timely PORT and to develop a conceptual model. RESULTS: In all, 27 patients with HNSCC undergoing surgery and PORT were included, of whom 41% were African American, and 37% had surgery and PORT at different facilities. Eighteen clinicians representing a diverse mix of provider types from 7 oncology practices participated in key informant interviews. Five key themes representing barriers to timely PORT were identified across 5 health care delivery levels: (1) inadequate education about timely PORT, (2) postsurgical sequelae that interrupt the tight treatment timeline (both intrapersonal level), (3) insufficient coordination and communication during care transitions (interpersonal and health care team levels), (4) fragmentation of care across health care organizations (organizational level), and (5) travel burden for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (community level). CONCLUSION: This study provides a novel description of the multilevel barriers that contribute to delayed PORT. Interventions targeting these multilevel barriers could improve the delivery of timely, guideline-adherent PORT and decrease mortality for patients with HNSCC.

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.

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

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.

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.

ImportanceAfter 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.ObjectiveTo estimate the threshold of pack-years of smoking associated with survival and tumor recurrence among patients with head and neck cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis 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.ExposuresHeavy vs light smoking using 22 pack-years as a threshold based on maximizing log-rank test statistic.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOverall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), locoregional failure (LRF), and distant failure (DF).ResultsA 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 RelevanceIn 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.

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.We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 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.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.The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated 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.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.

e13542 Background: Individuals from the family and social support network of cancer patients can have a pivotal role in reinforcing patients’ efforts to become and remain tobacco-free. This support is critical along the entire continuum of cancer care. While NCI-designated cancer centers across the US are increasingly offering tobacco cessation services, as a result of the NCI Cancer Center Cessation initiative, engaging patients’ family and other support network in tobacco treatment is not yet routine practice and has not been well described. We present findings from NCI designated cancer centers on the practice of assessing and offering tobacco treatment to support persons as part of care. Methods: A 24-item survey was administered (July-August 2021) across 50 cancer centers participating in C3I. Questions focused on the practice of routine assessment, offering information on quitting, referral to tobacco treatment, involving the family and social support person in tobacco treatment, provide tobacco treatment and document treatment for support persons of cancer patients. Responses assessed frequency of these practices, which included “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” “always (routine),” and “don’t know”. Additionally, strength of support from leadership for these practices and program access to linguistic and culturally appropriate resources were assessed using responses “not at all,” “some,” “great,” “full extent” and “don’t know”. Descriptive statistics were performed using SPSS (V. 28). Results: Representatives from 45 centers (90%) completed the survey. Less than half of centers (44%) indicated they always identified and 29% always offered resources to patients’ support persons or family members who used tobacco. Fewer clinics (18%), always provided treatment to patients’ support persons or family members and only one reported billing for tobacco use treatment encounters with support persons. For patient’s secondhand smoke exposure, less than half of the clinics report routinely (always) assessing (44%), documenting (49%) and providing intervention (29%). Importantly, 60% of centers reported having access to linguistically and culturally appropriate, population-specific resources to address support persons tobacco use to a great or full extent. Leadership support to address family and support persons’ tobacco use was indicated by 56% of clinics. Conclusions: While some NCI designated cancer centers report routine practices for patients’ support persons, including family members who use tobacco, there is substantial room for improvement. The importance of routine practices to assess and treat support persons who use tobacco can dramatically improve tobacco cessation and ultimately overall outcomes for cancer patients. Similarly, addressing secondhand smoke exposure for cancer patients and their support person(s) who smoke, is critical along the entire continuum of cancer care.

PURPOSE Patients with cancer who use tobacco experience reduced treatment effectiveness, increased risk of recurrence and mortality, and diminished quality of life. Accurate tobacco use documentation for patients with cancer is necessary for appropriate clinical decision making and cancer outcomes research. Our aim was to assess agreement between electronic health record (EHR) smoking status data and cancer registry data. MATERIALS AND METHODS We identified all patients with cancer seen at University of Florida Health from 2015 to 2018. Structured EHR smoking status was compared with the tumor registry smoking status for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and Kappa statistics were calculated. We used logistic regression to determine if patient characteristics were associated with odds of agreement in smoking status between EHR and registry data. RESULTS We analyzed 11,110 patient records. EHR smoking status was documented for nearly all (98%) patients. Overall kappa (0.78; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.79) indicated moderate agreement between the registry and EHR. The sensitivity was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.84), and the specificity was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96 to 0.97). The logistic regression results indicated that agreement was more likely among patients who were older and female and if the EHR documentation occurred closer to the date of cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSION Although documentation of smoking status for patients with cancer is standard practice, we only found moderate agreement between EHR and tumor registry data. Interventions and research using EHR data should prioritize ensuring the validity of smoking status data. Multilevel strategies are needed to achieve consistent and accurate documentation of smoking status in cancer care.

Background The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications. Methods We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020. We analyzed operating costs by resource category (e.g., personnel, medications) concurrently with transcripts from semi-structured key-informant interviews conducted during site visits. Personnel salary costs were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data adjusted for area and occupation, and non-wage benefits. Qualitative findings provided additional information on intangible resources and contextual factors related to implementation costs. Results Median total monthly operating costs across funded centers were $11,045 (range: $5129–$20,751). The largest median operating cost category was personnel ($10,307; range: $4122–$19,794), with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications ($17–$573), materials ($6–$435), training ($96–$516), technology ($171–$2759), and equipment ($10–$620). Median cost-per-participant was $466 (range: $70–$2093) and cost-per-quit was $2688 (range: $330–$9628), with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components. Site interviews provided context for understanding variations in program components and their cost implications. Conclusions Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs.

Background Cigarette smoking in people with cancer is associated with negative treatment-related outcomes including increased treatment toxicity and complications, medication side effects, decreased performance status and morbidity. Evidence-based smoking cessation care is not routinely provided to patients with cancer. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a smoking cessation implementation intervention on abstinence from smoking in people diagnosed with cancer. Methods A stepped wedge cluster randomised design will be used. All sites begin in the control condition providing treatment as usual. In a randomly generated order, sites will move to the intervention condition. Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, implementation of Care to Quit will include (i) building the capability and motivation of a critical mass of key clinical staff and identifying champions; and (ii) identifying and implementing cessation care models/pathways. Two thousand one hundred sixty patients with cancer (diagnosed in the prior six months), aged 18+, who report recent combustible tobacco use (past 90 days or in the 30 days prior to cancer diagnosis) and are accessing anti-cancer therapy, will be recruited at nine sites. Assessments will be conducted at baseline and 7-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be 6-month abstinence from smoking. Secondary outcomes include biochemical verification of abstinence from smoking, duration of quit attempts, tobacco consumption, nicotine dependence, provision and receipt of smoking cessation care, mental health and quality of life and cost effectiveness of the intervention. Discussion This study will implement best practice smoking cessation care in cancer centres and has the potential for wide dissemination. Trial registration The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN (ACTRN12621000154808) prior to the accrual of the first participant and will be updated regularly as per registry guidelines.

Smoking by cancer patients and survivors causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes, but little information is available about how smoking can affect cancer treatment costs. We developed a model to estimate attributable cancer treatment failure because of continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis (afs). Canadian health system data were used to determine the additional treatment cost for afs for the most common cancers in Canada. Of 206,000 patients diagnosed with cancer annually, an estimated 4789 experienced afs. The annual incremental cost associated with treating patients experiencing afs was estimated at between $198 million and $295 million (2017 Canadian dollars), reflecting an added incremental cost of $4,810&ndash, $7,162 per patient who continued to smoke. Analyses according to disease site demonstrated higher incremental costs where the smoking prevalence and the cost of individual second-line cancer treatment were highest. Of breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung cancers, lung cancer was associated with the highest incremental cost for treatment after afs. The costs associated with afs in Canada after a cancer diagnosis are considerable. Populations in which the smoking prevalence and treatment costs are high are expected to benefit the most from efforts aimed at increasing smoking cessation capacity for patients newly diagnosed with cancer.

The global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to escalate at a rapid pace inundating medical facilities and creating substantial challenges globally. The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with cancer seems to be higher, espe- cially as they are more likely to present with an immuno- compromised condition, either from cancer itself or from the treatments they receive. A major consideration in the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic is to balance the risk of patient exposure and infection with the need to provide effective cancer treatment. Many aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection currently remain poorly characterized and even less is known about the course of infection in the context of a patient with cancer. As SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious, the risk of infection directly affects the cancer patient being treated, other cancer patients in close prox- imity, and health care providers. Infection at any level for patients or providers can cause considerable disruption to even the most effective treatment plans. Lung cancer pa- tients, especially those with reduced lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities are more likely to have increased risk and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 as one of its common manifestations is as an acute respi- ratory illness. The purpose of this manuscript is to present a practical multidisciplinary and international overview to assist in treatment for lung cancer patients during this pandemic, with the caveat that evidence is lacking in many areas. It is expected that firmer recommendations can be developed as more evidence becomes available. (C) 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.

Importance The standard of care for initiation of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is within 6 weeks of surgical treatment. Delays in guideline-adherent PORT initiation are common, associated with mortality, and a measure of quality care, but patient-specific tools to estimate the risk of these delays are lacking. Objective To develop and validate 2 nomograms (that use presurgical and postsurgical data) for predicting delayed PORT initiation. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study obtained patient data from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2015, from the National Cancer Database. Adults aged 18 years or older with a newly diagnosed HNSCC who underwent surgical treatment and PORT at a Commission on Cancer–accredited facility were included. Data analysis was conducted from June 2, 2019, to January 29, 2020. Exposures Surgical treatment and PORT. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measure was PORT initiation more than 6 weeks after the surgical intervention. Multivariable logistic regression models were created in a random selection of 80% of the sample (derivation cohort) and were internally validated with bootstrapping, assessed for discrimination by calibration plots and the concordance (C) index, and externally validated in the remaining 20% of the sample (validation cohort). Results The study included 60 766 adults with HNSCC who were grouped into derivation and validation cohorts. The derivation cohort comprised 48 625 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.59 [11.3] years; 36 825 men [75.7%]) selected randomly from the full sample, whereas 12 151 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.63 [11.2] years; 9266 men [76.3%]) composed the validation cohort. The rate of PORT delay was 55.8% (n=27140) in the derivation cohort and 56.7% (n=6900) in the validation cohort. Both nomograms created to predict the risk of PORT initiation delay used variables, including race/ethnicity, insurance type, tumor site, and facility type. The nomogram based on presurgical variables included clinical stage and severity of comorbidity, whereas the nomogram with postsurgical variables included US region, length of stay, and care fragmentation between surgical and radiotherapy facilities. For the presurgical nomogram, the concordance indices were 0.670 (95% CI, 0.664-0.676) in the derivation cohort and 0.674 (95% CI, 0.662-0.685) in the validation cohort. For the nomogram with postsurgical variables, the concordance indices were 0.691 (95% CI, 0.686-0.696) in the derivation cohort and 0.694 (95% CI, 0.685-0.704) in the validation cohort. Conclusions and Relevance This study found that a nomogram developed with presurgical data to generate personalized estimates of PORT initiation delay may improve pretreatment counseling and the delivery of interventions to patients at high risk for such a delay. A nomogram including postsurgical data can drive institutional quality improvement initiatives and enhance risk-adjusted comparisons of delay rates across facilities.

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.

Continued smoking after a cancer diagnosis increases mortality, risk of recurrence, and negatively impacts treatment effectiveness. However, utilization of tobacco use cessation treatment among cancer patients remains low. We conducted a clinical trial assessing patient preferences, treatment acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness (7-day point prevalence at 12 weeks) of three tobacco treatment options among cancer patients at an academic health center. Implementation strategies included electronic referral and offering the choice of three treatment options: referral to external services, including the quitline (PhoneQuit) and in-person group counseling (GroupQuit), or an internal service consisting of 6-week cognitive behavioral therapy delivered via smartphone video conferencing by a tobacco treatment specialist (SmartQuit). Of 545 eligible patients, 90 (16.5%) agreed to enroll. Of the enrolled patients, 39 (43.3%) chose PhoneQuit, 37 (41.1%) SmartQuit, and 14 (15.6%) GroupQuit. Of patients reached for 12-week follow-up (n = 35), 19 (54.3%) reported receiving tobacco treatment. Of all patients referred, 3 (7.7%) PhoneQuit, 2 (5.4%) SmartQuit, and 2 (14.3%) GroupQuit patients reported 7-day point prevalence abstinence from smoking at 12 weeks. Participants rated the SmartQuit intervention highly in terms of treatment acceptability. Results indicate that more intensive interventions may be needed for this population, and opportunities remain for improving reach and utilization.

PURPOSE: Although smoking by patients with cancer and survivors causes adverse outcomes, many patients with cancer do not receive access to evidence-based tobacco use treatment. The purpose of this article is to report on delivery of tobacco use treatment to patients with cancer using a state-supported Quitline. METHODS: Statewide agencies in Michigan partnered with the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium to develop and implement a clinical quality improvement initiative with the goal of addressing tobacco use by patients with cancer across Michigan oncology practices. The collaborative designed an opt-out approach for identifying tobacco users and referring them to the Michigan Tobacco Quitline (hereafter known as Quitline) within participating practices. As the initiative progressed, patients with cancer who were not referred through the initiative also became eligible for enrollment in the Quitline program. RESULTS: A total of 4,347 patients with cancer enrolled in the Quitline between 2012 and 2017, and annual referrals from oncology practices increased from 364 (5% of Quitline participants) to 876 (17% of Quitline participants). The 2013-2016 Michigan Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System also demonstrated an increase from 60% to 80% of cancer survivors receiving smoking cessation resources. Of 3,892 patients with cancer who had Quitline follow-up data through 2017, 79% completed one or more counseling calls. The 6-month self-reported quit rate for patients with cancer assessed between 2013 and 2016 was 26%. CONCLUSION: Using statewide resources to increase access to evidence-based smoking cessation assistance to patients with cancer is achievable. In an increasingly cost-conscious health care environment, collaborative initiatives that use or enhance existing resources should be considered and refined to deliver effective evidence-based care.

Background:Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis is associated with improved overall survival. Few studies have reported oncologists' cessation practice patterns, but differences between the curative and palliative settings have not been described. We aimed to study the oncologist's perceptions on patients' tobacco use, current practices and barriers to providing smoking cessation support, while distinguishing between treatment with curative (C) and palliative (P) intent. Methods:In 2019, an online 34-item survey was sent to approximately 6235 oncologists from 16 European countries. Responses were descriptively reported and compared by treatment setting. Results:Responses from 544 oncologists were included. Oncologists appeared to favour addressing tobacco in the curative setting more than in the palliative setting. Oncologists believe that continued smoking impacts treatment outcomes (C: 94%, P: 74%) and that cessation support should be standard cancer care (C: 95%, P: 63%). Most routinely assess tobacco use (C: 93%, P: 78%) and advise patients to stop using tobacco (C: 88%, P: 54%), but only 24% (P)-39% (C) routinely discuss medication options, and only 18% (P)-31% (C) provide cessation support. Hesitation to remove a pleasurable habit (C: 13%, P: 43%) and disbelieve on smoking affecting outcomes (C: 3%, P: 14%) were disparate barriers between the curative and palliative settings (p < 0.001), but dominant barriers of time, resources, education and patient resistance were similar between settings. Conclusion:Oncologists appear to favour addressing tobacco use more in the curative setting; however, they discuss medication options and/or provide cessation support in a minority of cases. All patients who report current smoking should have access to evidence-based smoking cessation support, also patients treated with palliative intent given their increasing survival.

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. Conclusions 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. Plain Language Summary Tobacco cessation significantly improves cancer patients’ treatment outcomes, quality of life, and chances of survival; however, tobacco cessation interventions are not routinely delivered in oncology care. Interviews with oncologists identified barriers to delivering tobacco cessation interventions at multiple levels. Suggested strategies for overcoming these barriers included simplifying cessation intervention processes, establishing incentives for oncologists to address tobacco use, and using the electronic health record to support intervention activities. Oncologists generally supported implementing on-site tobacco cessation counseling for cancer patients. Although there was support for developing a registry of tobacco users with an external tobacco cessation program, more reservations were expressed. Our work identifies several stakeholder-endorsed strategies for implementing tobacco cessation interventions in cancer care. Future research should test the effectiveness of these strategies.

Background Limited information exist on tobacco and e-cigarette use patterns in cancer survivors. The purpose of this study is to report on use patterns in cancer survivors compared with non-cancer participants from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Methods Sociodemographic data and tobacco product use were analyzed for 32,244 adult participants from the PATH Study in 2013–2014 by cancer status and age. Logistic regression examined the patterns of and factors associated with tobacco use by cancer status. Results Overall, cancer survivors represented 7.1% (n = 1,527) of participants, were older, and had a higher proportion of females and non-Hispanic whites than non-cancer participants. In cancer survivors, current and former cigarette smoking was reported in 12.7% and 32.9% respectively, compared with 18.5% and 19.0% in non-cancer adults. Current e-cigarette use was reported by 3.8% of survivors compared with 5.7% of non-cancer participants. Dual tobacco use was reported by 25.0% and poly use by 6.9% of cancer survivors who currently smoked. All other forms of current tobacco use were individually reported by

Introduction: Continued smoking by cancer patients causes adverse cancer treatment outcomes, but few patients receive evidence-based smoking cessation as a standard of care.Aim: To evaluate practical strategies to promote wide-scale dissemination and implementation of evidence-based tobacco cessation services within state cancer centers.Methods: A Collaborative Learning Model (CLM) for Quality Improvement was evaluated with three community oncology practices to identify barriers and facilitate practice change to deliver evidence-based smoking cessation treatments to cancer patients using standardized assessments and referrals to statewide smoking cessation resources. Patients were enrolled and tracked through an automated data system and received follow-up cessation support post-enrollment. Monthly quantitative reports and qualitative data gathered through interviews and collaborative learning sessions were used to evaluate meaningful quality improvement changes in each cancer center.Results: Baseline practice evaluation for the CLM identified the lack of tobacco use documentation, awareness of cessation guidelines, and awareness of services for patients as common barriers. Implementation of a structured assessment and referral process demonstrated that of 1,632 newly registered cancer patients,1,581 (97%) were screened for tobacco use. Among those screened, 283 (18%) were found to be tobacco users. Of identified tobacco users, 207 (73%) were advised to quit. Referral of new patients who reported using tobacco to an evidence-based cessation program increased from 0% at baseline across all three cancer centers to 64% (range = 30%–89%) during the project period.Conclusions: Implementation of quality improvement learning collaborative models can dramatically improve delivery of guideline-based tobacco cessation treatments to cancer patients.

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.

The cannabis plant and its derivatives have been exploited for centuries for recreational and medicinal purposes, with millions of regular users around the world. The recreational use of cannabis is reflective of its neuropsychiatric effects, such as anxiolysis and euphoria. However, cannabis appears to have an emerging therapeutic role, especially in chronic disease and as an adjunct to cancer treatment. Increasing evidence supports cannabis in the management of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) and for pain management; however, studies are limited, particularly by difficulties associated with standardized dosing estimates and inability to accurately assess biologic activities of compounds in cannabis and derivative products. Smoking cannabis has not been proved to be a risk factor in the development of lung cancer, but the data are limited by small studies, misclassification due to self-reporting of use, small numbers of heavy cannabis smokers, and confounding of the risk associated with known causative agents for lung cancer (such as parallel chronic tobacco use). Cannabis and its biologically effective derivatives warrant additional research, ideally, controlled trials in which the cannabidiol and the delta-9-tetrahydrocabinol strength and use are controlled and documented.

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. While 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, three secondary datasets were linked, which included clinical electronic health record data, tobacco cessation program data, and statewide healthcare utilization data. Odds ratios 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 post-discharge, 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 =.87 and .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.

// Anurag K. Singh 1 , Christina Mimikos 2 , Adrienne Groman 3 , Shiva Dibaj 3 , Alexis J. Platek 1 , David M. Cohan 2 , Wesley L. Hicks Jr 2 , Vishal Gupta 2 , Hassan Arshad 2 , Moni A. Kuriakose 2 , Graham W. Warren 4, 5 and Mary E. Platek 2, 6 1 Department of Radiation Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA 2 Department of Head and Neck/Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA 3 Department of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA 5 Department of Cell and Molecular Pharmacology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA 6 Department of Health, Nutrition and Dietetics, Buffalo State College (SUNY), Buffalo, NY, USA Correspondence to: Anurag K. Singh, email: Anurag.Singh@Roswellpark.org Keywords: tonsillar fossa, TORS, SCCHN, HPV, IMRT Received: January 13, 2017 Accepted: July 31, 2017 Published: August 10, 2017 ABSTRACT Objective: The study evaluated the addition of surgery (S) to radiation (RT) on survival of squamous cell carcinomas (SCC) of tonsillar-fossa (TF) in a modern cohort with similar epidemiology and treatment as current patients. Study Design: Retrospective analysis utilizing Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data. Results: For all stages combined TF patients who received S+RT had superior OS ( p < 0.01) and DSS ( p < 0.01). For each stage OS and DSS was superior for S+RT ( p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, HRs for OS were statistically significantly higher for TF patients (stage 2, 3, and 4) receiving RT alone ( p < 0.001). Materials and Methods: TF SCC patients treated with either S+RT or RT alone between 2004 and 2011 were examined ( n = 6,476). Primary outcome measures included overall survival (OS) and disease specific survival (DSS). Cox proportional hazard ratios (HR) were estimated for patients treated with S+RT compared to RT alone. Conclusions: OS and DSS were superior for all stages combined and for stages 2, 3, and 4 in TF patients who received S+RT compared to RT alone.

Introduction: The emergence of electronic cigarettes (ECs) has become a growing phenomenon that has sharply split opinion among the public health community, physicians, and lawmakers.Aims: We sought to determine chest physician perceptions regarding ECs.Methods: We conducted a web-based survey of 18,000 American College of Chest Physician (CHEST) members to determine health care provider experiences with EC users and to characterise provider perceptions regarding ECs.Results/Findings: There were 994 respondents. Eighty-eight per cent reported that patients had asked their opinion of ECs, and 31% reported EC use among at least 10% of their patients. More disagreed than agreed (41% vs. 21%) that patients could improve their health by switching from tobacco smoking to daily EC use. Respondents were split on whether ECs promote tobacco cessation (32% agree vs. 33% disagree).Conclusions: Current perceptions of ECs are variable among providers. More than 1/3 of respondents felt that EC's could be used for smoking cessation for smokers who failed prior quit attempts with approved therapies. However, many respondents were not convinced that ECs will reduce harms from tobacco use. There is an urgent need to generate additional high quality scientific data regarding ECs to inform chest physicians, health professionals, and the general public.

There is limited data on the effects of smoking on lung cancer patients with brain metastases. This single institution retrospective study of patients with brain metastases from lung cancer who received stereotactic radiosurgery assessed whether smoking history is associated with overall survival, local control, rate of new brain metastases (brain metastasis velocity), and likelihood of neurologic death after brain metastases. Patients were stratified by adenocarcinoma versus nonadenocarcinoma histologies. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed for survival endpoints. Competing risk analysis was performed for neurologic death analysis to account for risk of nonneurologic death. Separate linear regression and multivariate analyses were performed to estimate the brain metastasis velocity. Of 366 patients included in the analysis, the median age was 63, 54% were male and, 60% were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. Current smoking was reported by 37% and 91% had a smoking history. Current smoking status and pack‐year history of smoking had no effect on overall survival. There was a trend for an increased risk of neurologic death in nonadenocarcinoma patients who continued to smoke (14%, 35%, and 46% at 6/12/24 months) compared with patients who did not smoke (12%, 23%, and 30%, P = 0.053). Cumulative pack years smoking was associated with an increase in neurologic death for nonadenocarcinoma patients (HR = 1.01, CI: 1.00–1.02, P = 0.046). Increased pack‐year history increased brain metastasis velocity in multivariate analysis for overall patients (P = 0.026). Current smokers with nonadenocarcinoma lung cancers had a trend toward greater neurologic death than nonsmokers. Cumulative pack years smoking is associated with a greater brain metastasis velocity.