Search

Background Although smokers are at an increased risk for postoperative pulmonary complications after thoracic surgery, the relationship between cessation timing and postoperative pulmonary complications has not been explored in an era of enhanced recovery protocols and active tobacco cessation programs. Because a strong preference exists among thoracic surgeons to delay surgery to continued smokers, we sought to evaluate this relationship in a modern era. Methods Patients undergoing lung resection for a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer from 2012 to 2017 were identified. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate preoperative tobacco cessation timing to determine the impact on postoperative pulmonary complications. Results In all, 1038 ever smokers were identified. Patients were current smokers in 30 (3%) instances, and among former smokers, the preoperative cessation interval was 0 to 14 days in 10% (104), more than 14 days to 1 month in 6% (62), more than 1 month to 1 year in 18% (189), more than 1 to 5 years in 10% (107), and more than 5 years in 53% (546). Pulmonary complications occurred in 269 patients (26%). Multivariable analysis revealed that no group of recent or long-term quitters had superior outcomes in terms of pulmonary complications when evaluating various periods of abstinence in comparison with continued smokers and active quitters. Conclusions In an era of enhanced recovery protocols, minimally invasive surgery, and active tobacco cessation programs that may help patients to cut back, our data do not support the practice of delaying or denying surgery to patients who have difficulty quitting completely. Perioperative cessation counseling should be aimed at long-term benefits, including reduction of disease recurrence and secondary malignancies.

IMPORTANCE: Improving treatment outcomes for smokers with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) can have significant public health implications. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy among smokers with MDD. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind, active- (nicotine patch) and placebo-controlled trial of 12 weeks of either varenicline or bupropion with 12-week follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Community volunteers 18-75 years of age; smoke 10+ cigarettes/day; with clinically stable MDD(N=2635) or no psychiatric disorder(N=4028), from 140 sites in 16 countries. INTERVENTION: 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy (placebo, PLA; nicotine replacement therapy, NRT; bupropion, BUP; varenicline, VAR) plus brief cessation counseling. MEASURE(S): Primary safety outcome: the occurrence of ≥ 1 treatment-emergent, moderate to severe Neuropsychiatric Adverse Event (NPSAE). Primary efficacy outcome: biochemically confirmed continuous abstinence (CA) during the final 4 weeks of treatment (Weeks 9–12). RESULTS: 6,653 participants (56% female; 39% MDD) ~47 years old. Risk of NPSAEs did not differ by medication for MDD. MDD had higher risk (p

BACKGROUND: There is preliminary evidence that the anticonvulsant topiramate increases the likelihood of both smoking and alcohol abstinence among smokers with alcohol use disorder (AUD), but its therapeutic mechanism has not been determined. We used event-related potentials (ERPs) to evaluate topiramate’s effect on the salience of drug-related, emotional, and neutral pictorial cues to identify whether one of its potential therapeutic mechanisms involves reduction of the salience of motivationally relevant cues. METHODS: Participants, who were enrolled in a multisite clinical trial treating smokers with AUD, were randomized to receive placebo, low-dose topiramate (up to 125 mg/day), or high-dose topiramate (up to 250 mg/day), along with brief behavioral compliance enhancement treatment. A subsample (n=101) completed ERP assessments at baseline (1 week pre-medication) and week 5 (5 weeks on medication; 1 week pre-quit). We assessed the salience of pleasant, unpleasant, cigarette-related, alcohol-related, and neutral pictorial cues using the late positive potential (LPP) ERP component, and measured self-reported substance use, reinforcement, craving, and withdrawal. RESULTS: Five weeks of high-dose topiramate treatment decreased LPP amplitudes to both emotional (pleasant and unpleasant) and drug-related cues (alcohol and cigarette), but not to neutral cues. However, results showed that the LPPs were not significant mediators of the relationship between topiramate dose and post-quit measures of substance use, reinforcement, craving, or withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that high-dose topiramate (up to 250 mg/day) decreases the motivational salience of both drug-related and emotional cues among smokers with AUD. However, the nonsignificant mediation analyses preclude any firm conclusions about whether this effect represents one of topiramate’s therapeutic mechanisms of action.

Background Approximately one quarter of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients smoke cigarettes at the time of diagnosis. Despite HNC guideline recommendations to treat tobacco dependence, the effectiveness of treatment in this population is poorly described. Methods This retrospective cohort review evaluated 117 current smokers with p16-negative mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma prospectively enrolled in a tobacco treatment program. Seven-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence rates at 9 months and survival outcomes were compared among abstinent and nonabstinent groups. Results Median follow-up among survivors was 62.4 months. Forty percent of patients were abstinent at 9 months according to intention-to-treat analysis. After adjustment for age, comorbidity and site, abstinent stage I to II patients had a decreased risk of death compared to smoking stage I to II patients (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03-0.82). Conclusions High cohort abstinence rates and favorable survival among abstinent patients with early-stage HNC confirm the importance of tobacco dependence treatment in this population.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bupropion extended release (XL; once-daily dosing) has equal efficacy with the sustained release (SR) formulation (twice-daily dosing) for treating depression, but no studies have compared the two formulations for the treatment of smoking. In a naturalistic open label study, we compared the effectiveness and the adverse event profiles of XL and SR in treating cancer patients for smoking. METHODS: Cancer patients (N=648) were prescribed bupropion XL (n=454) or SR (n=194) alone or in combination with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for treating smoking from September 2006 to December 2017. We analyzed 7-day point prevalence abstinence at end-of-treatment (EOT; 3 months post-medication initiation) and evaluated for noninferiority. We also analyzed the adverse event profile differences between the medications. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in abstinent rates at EOT between bupropion XL and SR when using intent-to-treat models, regardless of concomitant NRT. XL demonstrated noninferiority in treatment efficacy compared to SR when excluding those on combined treatment with NRT. Further, there were no significant differences in spontaneously reported adverse events between XL and SR. CONCLUSIONS: Our data did not reveal a difference between bupropion XL and SR formulations in terms of effectiveness or adverse event profiles among cancer patients prescribed bupropion alone or in combination with NRTs to quit smoking. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: In this first published direct comparison of their effectiveness and adverse event profiles, we found that bupropion XL is likely therapeutically equivalent to bupropion SR when treating smoking among cancer patients, and produces similar side effects.

Smoking is highly prevalent in individuals with psychiatric disorders. The relationship between smoking and anxiety disorders has received less attention than that of depression and substance use disorders, despite the fact that anxiety disorders are the most common of mental illnesses across the globe. In this study, we investigated the relationship between psychiatric disorders, including anxiety, depression, alcohol abuse, and comorbid combinations of these primary Axis I disorders and smoking cessation, in a cohort of 1,425 cancer patients who were participating in a smoking cessation clinical program. Patients were followed prospectively and assessed for abstinence status at the end of treatment and at 6-month posttreatment. Treatment involved six to eight behavioral smoking cessation counseling sessions over a 12- to 16-week period, and up to 12 weeks of smoking cessation pharmacotherapy. We hypothesized that patients with current anxiety disorders as well as other psychiatric disorders would have lower smoking cessation rates than those with no psychiatric disorders. There were no differences in abstinence rates between patients with anxiety disorders and those with no psychiatric disorders at end of treatment or 6 months. Patients with major depression or alcohol abuse had lower cessation rates than patients with no psychiatric disorders at 6 months. Findings suggest that both major depression and alcohol abuse may adversely affect treatment outcome in cancer patients. However, these findings should be considered within the limitations of observational studies that involve comparisons between nonrandomly assigned groups. Keywords: smoking cessation; anxiety; depression; alcohol Smoking is highly prevalent in individuals with psychiatric disorders. Recent epidemiologic data show that smoking prevalence was 40.1% among adults who had mental illness within the previous 12 months, compared to 21.3% in adults who reported no mental illness in the previous 12 months (Lawrence, Mitrou, & Zubrick, 2009), a level that is similar to that of the general U.S. population (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005). Among individuals with current major depression and alcohol abuse or dependence, the smoking rate is estimated to be 45% and 56%, respectively (Lasser et al., 2000). Rates of nicotine dependence are higher in smokers with depression and alcohol use disorders than those with no psychiatric disorder (Grant, Hasin, Chou, Stinson, & Dawson, 2004; Pratt & Brody, 2010), and smokers with these disorders are less likely to quit (Breslau, Peterson, Schultz, Andreski, & Chilcoat, 1996; Pratt & Brody). The relationship between smoking and anxiety disorders has received less attention than that of depression and substance use disorders, despite the fact that anxiety disorders are the most common of mental illnesses across the globe (World Health Organization World Mental Health Survey Consortium, 2004). It has been estimated that approximately 38% of individuals with an anxiety disorder are current smokers, and that among all current adult smokers, 23% meet criteria for an anxiety disorder within the past 12 months (Lawrence et al., 2009). Smoking rates for each of the anxiety disorders are approximately double the rates of nonpsychiatrically disordered smokers (21.3%) and range from 45.2% for panic, 45.2% for generalized anxiety, 42.0% for agoraphobia, 40.0% for posttraumatic stress disorder, and 35% for social phobia (Lawrence et al.). The presence of anxiety disorders is related to nicotine dependence, withdrawal, and history of unsuccessful quit attempts (Breslau, Kilbey, & Andreski, 1991; Cougle, Zvolensky, Fitch, & Sachs-Ericsson, 2010). Current anxiety disorders have been shown to increase the risk of transition to nicotine dependence among daily smokers (Breslau, Novak, & Kessler, 2004). The presence of anxiety disorders has also been found to increase symptoms of nicotine withdrawal in a doseresponse fashion (John, Meyer, Rumpf, & Hapke, 2004). …

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate abstinence rates of tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers (DCCs) and to ascertain the number of NCI-DCCs with online references to TTPs. METHODS: Literature searches of Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were performed from their inception through January 2018 using keywords including cancer patients, cancer survivors, tobacco, smoking, cessation, and program. 4094 articles were identified, 1450 duplicates were removed, 2644 candidate titles and abstracts were screened, and 210 selected full-text articles were independently reviewed by two authors. Three retrospective, single-institution cohort studies describing system-wide TTPs at three NCI-DCCs met inclusion criteria. Secondarily, online website audits of each NCI-DCC were performed to identify institutions with online evidence of a system-wide TTP servicing cancer patients. RESULTS: Among 62 NCI-DCCs, only three reported system-wide TTP outcomes. Abstinence rates ranged from 15–47%. Online website audit identified 47 NCI-DCCs maintaining system-wide TTPs. Seventeen TTPs were housed within the cancer center and 30 TTPs were offered by the primary affiliated institution; among the latter group, only 13 TTPs were identifiable via the NCI-DCC webpage. CONCLUSIONS: Most NCI-DCCs offer tobacco treatment services to cancer patients but very few have reported their results. Increased NCI-DCC TTP outcome publication and online presence are needed.

When trying to quit, women are less likely than men to achieve long-term smoking abstinence. Identifying the neuropsychological mechanisms underlying women’s higher relapse vulnerability will help clinicians to develop effective tailored smoking cessation interventions. Here we used event-related potentials (ERPs), a direct measure of brain activity, to evaluate the extent to which neurophysiological responses to cigarette-related and other emotional stimuli differ between female and male smokers. Both women and men showed similar patterns of brain reactivity across all picture categories; pleasant and unpleasant images prompted larger Late Positive Potentials (LPPs, a robust measure of motivational relevance) than neutral images in both groups, and cigarette-related images prompted lower LPPs than high arousing emotional images in both groups. Unlike previous studies, there were no differences between male and female smokers with regard to LPP responses to cigarette-related images. This suggests that the LPP may not be ideally suited to discriminate neurophysiological gender differences or that there are simply no gender differences in the neurophysiological responses to cigarette-related stimuli. We collected ERPs from 222 non-nicotine-deprived smokers (101 women) while they watched a slideshow that included high and low emotionally arousing pleasant and unpleasant pictures, cigarette-related, and neutral pictures. We used the mean amplitude of the LPP to assess the affective significance that participants attributed to these pictures.

Tobacco smoking is a major public health hazard, one responsible for more deaths than alcohol, drugs, car accidents, HIV, and fire combined. While on the decline, it continues to be a major problem that is feasible but difficult to remedy, in particular once an individual is addicted to nicotine. On the bright side, effective treatments are available although very few people are taking advantage of these tools. The standard of care and evidenced-based treatment consist of behavioral in conjunction with pharmacological therapy. In the United States, there are seven pharmacological agents approved for use as single agents, while for heavily addicted or recalcitrant smokers a combination of more than one agent may be needed. Nicotine replacement products offer a safe way to transition from the harm of smoking tobacco to using only medicinal doses of nicotine for a gradual transition to total abstinence. E-cigarettes can be seen as a less harmful alternative to smoking; however, little is known about their potential for harm on long-term use.

Background: Smoking negatively affects overall survival after successful breast cancer (BC) treatment. We hypothesized that smoking cessation would improve survival outcomes of BC patients who were smokers at the time of diagnosis. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of self-identified smokers with BC treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patient demographics, date of diagnosis, tumor stage, tobacco treatment program (TP) participation, and time to death were extracted from our departmental databases and institutional electronic health records. We examined associations between tobacco abstinence status and survival using survival models, with and without interactions, adjusted for personal characteristics and biomarkers of disease. Results: Among all 31,069 BC patients treated at MD Anderson between 2006 and 2017, we identified 2126 smokers (6.8%). From those 2126 self-identified smokers, 665 participated in the TP, reporting a conservative estimate of 31% abstinence (intent-to-treat) 9 months into the program. Patients without reported follow-up abstinence status (including TP and non-TP participants) were handled in the analyses as smokers. Survival analysis controlled for multiple factors, including disease characteristics and participation in the TP, indicated that abstainers were more likely to be alive with no evidence of disease compared to non-abstainers (HR, 0.593; 95% CI, 0.386–0.911; p = 0.017). Conclusion: Our results suggest that quitting smoking is associated with improved survival among BC patients who were smokers at time of diagnosis across all tumor stages. Comprehensive approaches for smoking cessation in patients diagnosed with BC may prolong survival when started as early as the time of diagnosis.

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.

Background and aims Despite the availability of several efficacious smoking cessation treatments, fewer than 25% of smokers who quit remain abstinent 1 year post-treatment. This study aimed to determine if varenicline and bupropion combination treatment would result in higher abstinence rates than varenicline alone. Design A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group smoking cessation clinical trial in which participants were exposed to 12 weeks of treatment and followed for 12 months. Setting Hospital-based out-patient clinic in Texas, USA specializing in cancer prevention. Participants A total of 385 community smokers (58.44% male) who smoked 1 pack of cigarettes/day [mean = 19.66 cigarettes/day, standard deviation (SD) = 9.45]; had average carbon monoxide (CO) of 26.43 parts per million (SD = 13.74); and were moderately dependent (Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence = 4.79; SD = 2.07). Interventions and comparator Smokers were randomized in a 3 : 1 (active: Placebo) ratio to 12 weeks of treatment as follows: placebo (n = 56), varenicline (Var; n = 166), and varenicline + bupropion (Combo; n = 163). Measurements A priori primary outcome: prolonged abstinence at 12 months. Secondary outcomes 7-day point prevalence abstinence and continuous abstinence; all abstinence measures at end of treatment and 6-month follow-ups. Findings Intention-to-treat analysis: the Combo group (n = 163) failed to demonstrate superiority to the Var group (n = 166) for prolonged abstinence at 12 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-1.64], supported by Bayes factor = 0.06. Both the Var (OR = 6.66, 95% CI = 1.61-59.27) and Combo groups (OR = 6.06, 95% CI = 1.45-54.09) demonstrated superiority to the Placebo group (n = 56; score = 8.38, P Conclusions The addition of bupropion to varenicline treatment does not appear to increase smoking abstinence rates above that of varenicline alone. The findings support previous research showing a consistently favorable effect of both varenicline and the combination of varenicline and bupropion on smoking cessation compared with placebo.

Introduction Varenicline and bupropion are two effective smoking cessation pharmacotherapies. Researchers have hypothesized that they might be effective, in part, because they reduce cue reactivity and cue-induced cravings. Here, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to directly measure brain responses to cigarette-related and other motivationally relevant images during a pharmacologically aided quit attempt. Methods Smokers involved in a 12-week placebo-controlled double-blind clinical trial of smoking cessation medications (varenicline, bupropion, placebo) took part in the study. We assessed participants at two time points: 24 h (n = 140) and 4 weeks (n = 176) after the quit date. At both sessions, we measured the amplitude of the late positive potential (LPP), an ERP component reliably associated with motivational relevance, and self-reported tonic craving using the brief version of the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges (QSU-Brief). Results At both sessions, emotional and cigarette-related images evoked significantly larger LPPs than neutral images. Neither drug type nor smoking abstinence altered this effect at either session. At both sessions, varenicline and bupropion significantly reduced self-reported tonic craving relative to the placebo condition. Conclusions While both varenicline and bupropion reduced self-reported tonic craving, neither medication altered the amplitude of the LPP to cigarette-related or emotional pictures in smokers attempting to quit. These medications may influence abstinence by means other than by reducing neuroaffective responses to cigarette-related cues. Smokers should be prepared for the likelihood that even after several weeks of successful abstinence, once treatment ends, cigarette-related cues may remain motivationally relevant and trigger cravings that might lead to relapse. Implications Bupropion and varenicline do not alter electrophysiological responses, as measured by the LPP, to cigarette-related and emotional images. These findings help explain why cigarette-related cues can trigger relapse when smoking cessation medication treatments end.

Neurobiological models of addiction posit that drug use can alter reward processes in two ways: (1) by increasing the motivational relevance of drugs and drug-related cues and (2) by reducing the motivational relevance of non-drug-related rewards. Here, we discuss the results from a series of neuroimaging studies in which we assessed the extent to which these hypotheses apply to nicotine dependence. In these studies, we recorded smokers’ and nonsmokers’ brain responses to a wide array of motivationally relevant visual stimuli that included pleasant, unpleasant, cigarette-related, and neutral images. Based on these findings, we highlight the flaws of the traditional cue reactivity paradigm and we conclude that responses to non-drug-related motivationally relevant stimuli should be used to appropriately gauge the motivational relevance of cigarette-related cues and to identify smokers attributing higher motivational relevance to drug-related cues than to non-drug-related rewards. Identifying these individuals is clinically relevant as they achieve lower rates of long-term smoking abstinence when attempting to quit. Finally, we show how this approach may be extended beyond nicotine dependence to inform theoretical and clinical research in the study of obesity. Implications The cue reactivity paradigm (ie, comparing responses evoked by drug-related cues to those evoked by neutral cues) cannot provide conclusive information about the motivational relevance of drug-related cues. Responses to non-drug-related motivationally relevant stimuli should be used to appropriately gauge the level of motivational relevance that substance-dependent individuals attribute to drug-related cues.

Despite the withdrawal of CB1 antagonists, such as rimonabant, from the market and from active clinical development because of concerns about their side effect profiles, research suggests that the endocannabinoid system may play an important role in modulating nicotine's effects. We report the combined results, using a pooled analysis, of three previously unpublished trials assessing rimonabant as a smoking cessation pharmacotherapy conducted between 2002 and 2004. Smokers (n = 2097) motivated to quit were enrolled in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, STRATUS EU, US, and META, which consisted of a 10-week treatment period with either rimonabant 20 mg (n = 789), 5 mg (n = 518; used in only two of the three studies), or placebo (n = 790), in conjunction with brief counseling. The impact of drug on prolonged abstinence and adverse events was examined at 8 weeks (end-of-treatment) and at 48 weeks (available for STRATUS EU and US) after the targeted quit date. Rimonabant 20 mg resulted in significantly higher abstinence at end-of-treatment and at 48 weeks post-targeted quit date compared with placebo, while rimonabant 5 mg and placebo did not differ. Serious AEs did not differ by drug group. The 20 mg rimonabant dose, compared with placebo, produced increased nausea, diarrhea, anxiety symptoms, hyporexia, and vomiting, and decreased headache, constipation, and cough. These results support rimonabant 20 mg as a modestly effective aid for smoking cessation. Although work on CB1 antagonists such as rimonabant has mostly been stopped because of unacceptable adverse events, these results may inform and spur the development of other endocannabinoids for smoking cessation.

We have shown that differences in the level of neural activation to stimuli associated with smoking vs. natural rewards, a biomarker related to reward sensitivity, predict treatment outcome. This paper examined whether this biomarker moderates the impact of bupropion or varenicline on smoking cessation. Prior to treatment randomization, smokers (N = 180) in a placebo-controlled trial using bupropion and varenicline completed event-related potential recording (late positive potential, LPP) while viewing pleasant (P), cigarette (C)-related, and other pictures. We used Bayesian models to estimate the probability of interaction between treatment and the LPP for both efficacy and comparative effectiveness analyses. Efficacy analysis showed that smokers with more neural activation to pleasant vs. cigarette-related stimuli (P > C) had a 98–99% chance of achieving greater abstinence than placebo (OR >1.00), using either medication from the end of treatment (EOT, primary outcome) through the 3-month follow-up. Relative to placebo, smokers with higher activation to cigarette-related vs. pleasant stimuli (C > P) had a 99% chance of increased benefit from varenicline at both time points (OR >1), but only 67 and 43% with bupropion at the EOT and 3-month follow-up, respectively. Comparative effectiveness analysis found that smokers with the C > P activation pattern had a 95–98% chance of benefit from varenicline vs. bupropion, while P > C smokers had a 50–58% chance of similar improvement with varenicline at the EOT and 3 months. Varenicline appears to be the treatment of choice for smokers with the C > P pattern of neural activation, while for those showing P > C, varenicline and bupropion have similar efficacy.

Introduction By improving our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying addiction, neuroimaging research is helping to identify new targets for personalized treatment interventions. When trying to quit, smokers with larger electrophysiological responses to cigarette-related, compared with pleasant, stimuli (“C > P”) are more likely to relapse than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile (“P > C”). Aim and Method The goal was to (1) build a classification algorithm to identify smokers characterized by P > C or C > P neuroaffective profiles and (2) validate the algorithm’s classification outcomes in an independent data set where we assessed both smokers’ electrophysiological responses at baseline and smoking abstinence during a quit attempt. We built the classification algorithm applying discriminant function analysis on the event-related potentials evoked by emotional images in 180 smokers. Results The predictive validity of the classifier showed promise in an independent data set that included new data from 177 smokers interested in quitting; the algorithm classified 111 smokers as P > C and 66 as C > P. The overall abstinence rate was low; 15 individuals (8.5% of the sample) achieved CO-verified 12-month abstinence. Although individuals classified as P > C were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers classified as C > P (12 vs. 3, or 11% vs. 4.5%), this result was nonsignificant, preliminary, and in need of confirmation in larger trials. Conclusion These results suggest that psychophysiological techniques have the potential to advance our knowledge of the neurobiological underpinnings of nicotine addiction and improve clinical applications. However, larger sample sizes are necessary to reliably assess the predictive ability of our algorithm. Implications We assessed the clinical relevance of a neuroimaging-based classification algorithm on an independent sample of smokers enrolled in a smoking cessation trial and found those with the tendency to attribute more relevance to rewards than cues were nearly 2.5 times more likely to be abstinent than smokers with the opposite brain reactivity profile (11% vs. 4.5%). Although this result was not statistically significant, it suggests our neuroimaging-based classification algorithm can potentially contribute to the development of new precision medicine interventions aimed at treating substance use disorders. Regardless, these findings are still preliminary and in need of confirmation in larger trials.

Tobacco use is projected to kill 1 billion people in the 21st century. Tobacco Use Disorder (TUD) is one of the most common substance use disorders in the world. Evidence-based treatment of TUD is effective, but treatment accessibility remains very low. A dearth of specially trained clinicians is a significant barrier to treatment accessibility, even within systems of care that implement brief intervention models. The treatment of TUD is becoming more complex and tailoring treatment to address new and traditional tobacco products is needed. The Council for Tobacco Treatment Training Programs (Council) is the accrediting body for Tobacco Treatment Specialist (TTS) training programs. Between 2016 and 2019, n = 7761 trainees completed Council-accredited TTS training programs. Trainees were primarily from North America (92.6%) and the Eastern Mediterranean (6.1%) and were trained via in-person group workshops in medical and academic settings. From 2016 to 2019, the number of Council-accredited training programs increased from 14 to 22 and annual number of trainees increased by 28.5%. Trainees have diverse professional backgrounds and work in diverse settings but were primarily White (69.1%) and female (78.7%) located in North America. Nearly two-thirds intended to implement tobacco treatment services in their setting, two-thirds had been providing tobacco treatment for 1 year or less, and 20% were sent to training by their employers. These findings suggest that the training programs are contributing to the development of a new workforce of TTSs as well as the development of new programmatic tobacco treatment services in diverse settings. Developing strategies to support attendance from demographically and geographically diverse professionals might increase the proportion of trainees from marginalized groups and regions of the world with significant tobacco-related inequities.

Tobacco use is the most common cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States; it accounts for one-third of all cancer deaths and is thought to account for half of preventable cancer deaths. This article describes the Tobacco Treatment Program at a major academic cancer center. Patients and employees may access these services in a number of ways. All current smokers and recent quitters are proactively contacted and invited to participate. Services provided are tailored to the motivational level of individual patients and their immediate medical needs. The treatment pathways we present are based on our experience from the last 10 years in treating more than 5,000 unique patients with around 60,000 patient visits. These pathways include behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy, including first-line, second-line, and off-label medication use. This article describes the program with the goal of providing guidance and ideas to others who are developing treatment programs and providing treatment to tobacco users.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States (U.S.) and is the second most common non-skin cancer among men and women, accounting for about 30% of cancer-related deaths. There is clear and accumulating evidence that continued tobacco use has multiple adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes, including greater probability of recurrence, second primary malignancies, reduced survival, greater symptom burden, and poorer quality of life (QOL). Recent findings suggest an avenue to significantly mitigate the impact of smoking on lung cancer mortality rates through the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening. Based on the reviewed evidence (type B), the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines of 2015 recommend screening combined with smoking cessation interventions for high-risk heavy smokers and recent quitters. These practice changes offer opportunities to develop novel smoking cessation strategies tailored to highly specific settings that aim to amplify the survivorship gains expected from screening alone. However, there is a paucity of research and data that speaks to the feasibility and efficacy of providing smoking cessation treatment specifically within the context of the LDCT lung cancer screening environment. While some studies have attempted to characterize the parameters within which smoking cessation interventions should be implemented in this context, further research is needed to explore relevant factors such as the format, components, and timing of interventions, as well as the influence of risk perceptions and results of the screening itself on motivation and ability to quit smoking.

Smoking prevalence among individuals with mental and behavioral health needs is considerably higher compared to the general population, but evidence-based smoking cessation therapies are underutilized in mental and behavioral healthcare settings, despite the fact that these treatments are both safe and effective. The goal of this paper is to present the background, design and pilot of Project TEACH (Tobacco Education and Cessation in the Health System) developed to improve clinical practice by offering specialized training in the provision of smoking cessation interventions to care providers in community mental health centers in Texas. This is achieved through engaging the expertise of clinicians at the MD Anderson Cancer Center’s Tobacco Treatment Program and disseminating this expertise to care providers by means of a novel tele-mentoring approach called Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes). Evaluation of our pilot ECHO training project demonstrated that the training was very well received and resulted in self-reported enhancement of the providers’ professional practice. This is the first project to extend the collaborative ECHO model to train healthcare providers in smoking cessation. This approach has potential to reduce smoking rates among smokers with mental and behavioral health needs, and consequently contribute to the prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases in this vulnerable population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the availability of several efficacious smoking cessation treatments, less than 25% of smokers who quit remain abstinent 1 year post treatment. This study aimed to determine if varenicline and bupropion combination treatment would result in higher abstinence rates than varenicline alone. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, parallel groups smoking cessation clinical trial in which participants were exposed to 12 weeks of treatment and followed for 12 months. SETTING: Hospital-based outpatient clinic in Texas, USA specializing in cancer prevention. PARTICIPANTS: 385 community smokers (56% male) who smoked 1 pack cigarettes/day (Mean = 19.66 cigs/day, S.D. = 9.45); had an average CO of 26.43 ppm (S.D. =13.74); and were moderately dependent (FTCD = 4.79; S.D. = 2.07). INTERVENTIONS AND COMPARATOR: Smokers were randomized in a 3:1 (Active: Placebo) ratio to 12 weeks of treatment as follows: Placebo (n=56), Varenicline (Var; n=166), and Varenicline + Bupropion (Combo; n=163). MEASUREMENTS: A priori primary outcome: Prolonged abstinence at 12 months. Secondary outcomes: Seven-day point prevalence abstinence and continuous abstinence; all abstinence measures at end of treatment and 6 month follow-ups. FINDINGS: Intent to treat analysis: the Combo group (n=163) failed to demonstrate superiority to the Var group (n=166) for prolonged abstinence at 12 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50–1.64], supported by Bayes Factor = 0.06. Both the Var [OR = 6.66, 95% CI = 1.61–59.27] and Combo groups [OR = 6.06, 95% CI = 1.45–54.09] demonstrated superiority to Placebo group (n=56; Score = 8.38, p< 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bupropion to varenicline treatment does not appear to increase smoking abstinence rates above that of varenicline alone. The findings support previous research showing a consistently favorable effect of both varenicline and the combination of varenicline and bupropion on smoking cessation compared with placebo.

Background Addictive disorders receive little attention in medical school and residency program curricula. Objective To evaluate an innovative learning approach encouraging and stimulating residents to focus on key competencies by testing before and after their addiction psychiatry rotation. Methods We developed a 50-item test on substance use disorders. Twenty-six general psychiatry residents, post-graduate year I (PGY-I) and II (PGY-II), participated in the pilot study and were divided into three groups. PGY-I residents were divided into Group 1, who were tested the last day of the rotation and again 2 months later, and Group 2, who were tested on the first and the last day of the rotation. Eight of 11 PGY-II residents agreed to participate as controls (Group 3), as they had previously completed their 2-month addiction psychiatry rotation as PGY-I's. All residents were informed that the testing would not affect their individual grade. After taking the first test, all three groups received related study materials. Results A statistically significant increase in re-test scores occurred in the combined groups (p

Approximately 30% of all cancer deaths in the United States are caused by tobacco use and smoking. Cancers of eighteen sites have been causally linked to smoking, the most common of which are the lung, head and neck, bladder, and esophagus. While quit rates and quit attempt rates are relatively high shortly after a cancer diagnosis, the recidivism rates are also high. Therefore, screening, treating, and preventing relapse to tobacco use is imperative among patients with and survivors of cancer. To date, research has consistently shown that a combination of pharmacologic and behavioral interventions is needed to achieve the highest smoking cessation rates, with a recent emphasis on individualized treatment as a most promising approach. Challenges in health care systems, including the lack of appropriate resources and provider training, have slowed the progress in addition to important clinical considerations relevant to the treatment of tobacco dependence (eg, a high degree of comorbidity with psychiatric disorders and other substance use disorders). However, continued tobacco use has been shown to limit the effectiveness of major cancer treatments and to increase the risk of complications and of developing secondary cancers. The authors recommend that oncology providers screen all patients for tobacco use and refer users to specialized treatment when available. Alternatively, oncology clinicians can provide basic advice on tobacco use cessation and pharmacotherapy and/or referral to outside resources (eg, quitlines). Herein, the authors summarize the current knowledge on tobacco use and its treatment, with a focus on the related available evidence for patients with and survivors of cancer.

Importance Patients with cancer who smoke after diagnosis risk experiencing reductions in treatment effectiveness, survival rates, and quality of life, and increases in complications, cancer recurrence, and second primary cancers. Smoking cessation can significantly affect these outcomes, but to date comprehensive treatment is not widely implemented in the oncologic setting. Objectives To describe a potential model tobacco treatment program (TTP) implemented in a cancer setting, report on its long-term outcomes, and highlight its importance to quality patient care. Design, Setting, and Participants A prospective cohort of smokers was treated in the TTP at a comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2006, to August 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to December 2018. Participants included 3245 patients (2343 with current cancer; 309 with previous cancer; 593 with no cancer history) drawn from a population of 5061 smokers referred for treatment in the TTP. Reasons for exclusion included follow-up for a noncancerous disease, no medical consultation, smoked less than 1 cigarette per day; or died before the 9-month follow-up. Exposures Treatment consisted of an in-person medical consultation, 6 to 8 in-person and telephone follow-up counseling sessions, and 10 to 12 weeks of pharmacotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was 9-month 7-day point-prevalence abstinence evaluated using time-specific (3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-ups) and longitudinal covariate-adjusted and unadjusted regression models with multiple imputation, intention-to-treat, and respondent-only approaches to missing data. The Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence was used as a measure of dependence (possible range, 0-10; higher numbers indicate greater dependence). Results Of the 3245 smokers, 1588 (48.9%) were men, 322 (9.9%) were of black race/ethnicity, 172 (5.3%) were of Hispanic race/ethnicity, and 2498 (76.0%) were of white race/ethnicity. Mean (SD) age was 54 (11.4) years; Fagerstrom Test for Cigarette Dependence score, 4.41 (2.2), number of cigarettes smoked per day, 17.1 (10.7); years smoked, 33 (13.2); and 1393 patients (42.9%) had at least 1 psychiatric comorbidity. Overall self-reported abstinence was 45.1% at 3 months, 45.8% at 6 months, and 43.7% at 9 months in the multiply imputed sample. Results across all models were consistent, suggesting that, in comparison with smokers with no cancer history, abstinence rates within this TTP program did not differ appreciably whether smokers had current cancer, were a cancer survivor, or had smoking-related cancers, with the exception of patients with head and neck cancer; the rates were higher at 9 months (relative risk, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56;P = .001) and in longitudinal models (relative risk, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.42;P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, mean smoking abstinence rates did not differ significantly between patients with cancer and those without cancer. These findings suggest that providing comprehensive tobacco treatment in the oncologic setting can result in sustained high abstinence rates for all patients with cancer and survivors and should be included as standard of care to ensure the best possible cancer treatment outcomes.

6068 Background: Multiple studies have highlighted the negative outcomes associated with smoking during radiation (XRT) for locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, there has been little research investigating the potential benefit of smoking cessation prior to XRT and the effect on response rates, relapse, distant metastases, secondary malignancies, and overall survival. Methods: We reviewed 680 patients at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2005-2012 with locally advanced head and neck cancer undergoing XRT. 127 were referred to the Tobacco Treatment Program (TTP) based on provider referrals, self-referrals, or screening. Of those referred and retrospectively reviewed, 89 were identified as current smokers and 41 of them participated in the TTP for smoking cessation. Among these 89 patients, 50 patients (18 participated in the TTP) quit smoking prior to XRT and 29 patients (19 participated in the TTP) continued to smoke, which are referred to as Quitters and Smokers, respectively. 10 patients (2 participated in the TTP) had incomplete data and were excluded from further analysis. Results: Quitters had 100% complete response (CR) on initial assessment following XRT. 7/50 (14%) developed relapsed disease with 4 local recurrences (LR) and 3 distant metastases (DM). 6/50 (12%) developed secondary malignancies. By contrast, Smokers had 96.5% CR on initial assessment following XRT. 8/29 (27.5%) developed relapsed disease with 6 LR and 2 DM. 6/29 (20.6%) developed secondary malignancies. The median follow ups for Quitters and Smokers were 57.5 and 54 months with overall survival rates of 82% and 79%, respectively. Conclusions: Current smokers that achieved smoking cessation prior to XRT demonstrated lower rates of relapse, DM, and secondary malignancies compared to those that continued to smoke. Thus, smoking cessation is an integral part of head and neck cancer treatment and needs to be further incorporated in cancer care to improve cancer treatment outcomes. As a future direction, a comparable group of patients who did not smoke from the same time range will be compared for response rates, LR, DM, secondary malignancies, and survival.

1542 Background: Breast cancer remains to be one of the highest causes of cancer mortality amongst females globally, second only to lung cancer. Smoking is strongly associated with increased all-cause mortality, including breast cancer related death. It has also been shown to have a negative influence on long-term survival after successful breast cancer treatment. Prior studies have shown that smoking cessation may lead to improved prognosis and better outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of breast cancer patients who were identified as smokers, some of who were referred to the tobacco treatment program (TTP) located at MD Anderson Cancer Center. TTP includes careful patient screening, motivational counseling, and pharmacotherapy. We complemented the original data collected by conducting in-depth chart reviews to extract data including patient demographics, date of diagnosis, stage of cancer, smoking status, duration of abstinence and dates of follow-up or death. We then examined associations between smoking status and survival status using multinomial regression models adjusting for biomarkers of disease and personal characteristics. Results: Among all breast cancer patients (N = 31069), we identified those who are smokers (n = 2320) by matching the TTP database with smoking status from our institutional electronic health records. Of those, 740 patients were referred to TTP. Amongst these, 242 patients quit smoking and remained abstinent at the 9 month follow-up. Compared with non-abstainers, those who quit were more likely to be alive with no evidence of disease during the observation time (RR = 1.62, p = 0.045). When analyzed at different stages, the RR went from 1.35 (p = 0.42) to 2.77 (p = 0.34) for stages 3 and 1, respectively. Although the strength of this relationship varied among disease stage, the direction of the relationship remain consistent. Conclusions: Our data shows that smoking cessation is associated with improved survival status amongst breast cancer survivors across all stages. Comprehensive smoking cessation services may improve survivorship when started as early as the time of diagnosis. Further analysis of the association between smoking cessation and other associated medical outcomes will be conducted to further determine the specific impact of cessation programs.

Introduction The reasons that some smokers find it harder to quit than others are unclear. Understanding how individual differences predict smoking cessation outcomes may allow the development of more successful personalized treatments for nicotine dependence. Theoretical models suggest that drug users might be characterized by increased sensitivity to drug cues and by reduced sensitivity to nondrug-related natural rewards. We hypothesized that baseline differences in brain sensitivity to natural rewards and cigarette-related cues would predict the outcome of a smoking cessation attempt. Methods Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we recorded prequit brain responses to neutral, emotional (pleasant and unpleasant), and cigarette-related cues from 55 smokers interested in quitting. We then assessed smoking abstinence, mood, and nicotine withdrawal symptoms during the course of a smoking cessation attempt. Results Using cluster analysis, we identified 2 groups of smokers who differed in their baseline responses to pleasant cues and cigarette-related cues in the posterior visual association areas, the dorsal striatum, and the medial and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Smokers who showed lower prequit levels of brain reactivity to pleasant stimuli than to cigarette-related cues were less likely to be abstinent 6 months after their quit attempt, and they had higher levels of negative affect during the course of the quit attempt. Conclusions Smokers with blunted brain responses to pleasant stimuli, relative to cigarette-related stimuli, had more difficulty quitting smoking. For these individuals, the lack of alternative forms of reinforcement when nicotine deprived might be an important factor underlying relapse. Normalizing these pathological neuroadaptations may help them achieve abstinence.

The article by Warren et al in this issue of Cancer is timely,1 because the US government has recently put into place a specific mandate for hospitals and health professionals to electronically screen for tobacco use. This mandate is spelled out in what are referred to as “meaningful use” regulations requiring that certain information be entered into each patient’s electronic health record (EHR) and be available to patients and their providers.2 In this editorial, we provide a model for meeting the mandate that includes implementation of a comprehensive smoking (tobacco) cessation program for cancer patients and the supporting evidence base for doing so as an alternative to the minimal intervention approach discussed by Warren et al. We also discuss the importance of an institution-wide, automated system to identify and refer tobacco users to treatment within the context of implementing the meaningful use regulations for EHR as required by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. Here, we briefly describe the effect of the meaningful use regulations for EHR on tobacco screening, the importance of automatic referrals for cessation assistance, and the continuing importance of provider referral and involvement. We then briefly discuss the Roswell Park Cancer Institute cessation program and the use of a public health model of care, which emphasizes providing minimal levels of intervention, and compare it with a more comprehensive model of cessation that provides a level of care tailored to the individual needs of cancer patients.Within this context, we discuss evidence supporting the use of a comprehensive treatment strategy for cancer patients that includes pharmacotherapy. To illustrate our points, we describe the comprehensive cessation programused at The University of TexasMDAnderson Cancer Center.

Objective Little is known about factors associated with smoking cessation in cancer patients. This study examined the impact of panic attacks on smoking abstinence likelihood among cancer patients receiving tobacco cessation treatment. Method The relationship of panic attacks to 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at mid-treatment, end of treatment, and 6-month post-end of treatment were examined among cancer patients ( N = 2255 patients; 50.1% female; M age = 54.9, SD = 11.0) who received counseling and pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. Panic attack history indexed by two questions from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Point-prevalence abstinence was assessed via the Timeline Follow-Back. Results Cancer patients with a history of panic attacks, ( n = 493, 21.9%) relative to those without, were less likely to be abstinent at mid-treatment ( OR = 0.79, CI 95 % = 0.64–0.98) and end of treatment ( OR = 0.72, CI 95 % = 0.58–0.89). After adjusting for significant covariates, panic attack history remained predictive of decreased abstinence likelihood at end of treatment (OR = 0.78, CI 95 % = 0.62–0.99). Conclusions Panic attacks may be related to poorer cessation outcome during smoking treatment among cancer patients, and may be usefully assessed and targeted for intervention.

In this study, we examined the relationship between the level of daily cigarette consumption and the startle response to affective and cigarette-related cues among treatment-seeking smokers. Before receiving any behavioral or pharmacological treatment, 136 smokers attended a baseline laboratory session, during which we recorded their reflexive eyeblink responses to acoustic startle probes while they were viewing pleasant, unpleasant, neutral, and cigarette-related pictures. We found that 1) cigarette-related and pleasant pictures similarly reduced the startle magnitude compared to neutral pictures; 2) the magnitude of startle modulation rendered by pleasant or unpleasant pictures did not differ among light, moderate, and heavy smokers; and 3) startle attenuation by cigarette-related pictures was greater in heavy smokers than in light smokers. These results suggest that similar to pleasant stimuli, cigarette-related cues are motivationally salient for smokers, and that this salience increases with nicotine dependence.

We conducted a double-blind pilot study involving 11 alcohol- and nicotine-dependent patients randomized to receive either bupropion or placebo. Four of six patients on bupropion and one of five patients on placebo were abstinent from smoking at the end of medication phase. Those in the bupropion group reported significantly less craving (p < .02) and less exposure to cigarette smoke over time (expired carbon monoxide; p < .01). There were no serious adverse events and no main effects of medication group on either per subject or total number of adverse events. All those who completed treatment remained abstinent from alcohol.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (XRT) is effective as the primary treatment modality for laryngopharyngeal cancer; however, complications of XRT can result in significant morbidity. Few previous studies have examined the effect of continued smoking on complications of XRT. The authors of this report hypothesized that patients with laryngopharyngeal cancer who successfully quit smoking would have fewer complications of primary XRT. METHODS: All patients with head and neck cancer who were smokers at the time of diagnosis were referred prospectively to the Tobacco Treatment Program (TTP). From this group, the patients with laryngopharyngeal cancer who received XRT as the primary treatment modality were retrospectively selected and studied. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were identified and were divided into 3 groups: Seventeen patients attended TTP and quit smoking before the start of XRT (Group 1), 33 patients attended TTP but continued to smoke during XRT (Group 2), and 37 patients refused TTP (Group 3). On the basis of a review of medical records for patients in Group 3, 20 patients quit smoking before starting XRT and were included in Group 1 (abstainers), 11 patients continued to smoke and were included in Group 2 (continued smokers), and 6 patients had incomplete data and were omitted from further analysis. Analyses both with and without Group 3 patients yielded similar results. Abstainers and continued smokers had similar demographic and clinical characteristics. With the exception of skin changes, all complications (mucositis, need for feeding tube, duration of feeding tube, need for hospitalization, pharyngeal stricture, and osteoradionecrosis) were more common in the patients who continued to smoke, although the only complications that were significantly more common were the need for hospitalization (P = .04) and osteoradionecrosis (P = .03). Patients who continued to smoke were more likely to develop osteoradionecrosis (relative risk [RR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–1.6; P = .03) and to require hospitalization during treatment (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.05–2.02; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Continued smoking during treatment appeared to increase the risk for complications of XRT for patients with laryngopharyngeal cancer and possibly increased hospitalizations. This hypothesis-generating study emphasized the importance of smoking cessation programs in the management of patients with head and neck cancer patients who receive XRT.

Nicotine replacement therapies (NRT) were the main pharmacologic option for treatment of nicotine dependence until the early 1990s, when controlled clinical trials confirmed the efficacy of bupropion, the first treatment not based on nicotine. Varenicline, a partial agonist at nicotine receptors, gained US regulatory approval in 2006 for smoking cessation. Although these agents are all effective for nicotine dependence, their efficacy rates vary compared with placebo (overall OR for NRT efficacy, 1.77; for bupropion, 1.94; for varenicline, 3.09). Each of these treatments has a place, sometimes in combinations with other agents, in cancer patients who continue to smoke. Our initial experience with varenicline has been encouraging. Bupropion has specific advantages for cancer patients, including increased energy, low risk for nausea, and decreased weight gain from quitting.

The authors pilot a smoking-cessation outreach for the homeless that extends medical students' tobacco cessation education.In this prospective study, second-year medical students administered cognitive behavior therapy or unstructured support to homeless subjects to help them quit smoking. Self-report and biological measures (carbon monoxide) of smoking taken at baseline and follow-up were analyzed using t tests to determine intervention efficacy.Out of 11 enrolled subjects, six completed the protocol and all decreased their smoking frequency. The mean rate of smoking dropped significantly from 19 to nine cigarettes per day when pooling all subjects, and carbon monoxide mean level decreased from 28.0 to 20.2.The homeless subjects who received counseling from medical students significantly reduced their smoking frequency. Subject recruitment and retention were challenges, but a close partnership with local homeless shelters and the addition of pharmacotherapy could improve outcomes and are recommended for future efforts.

BACKGROUND Tobacco use is responsible for almost half a million deaths per year in the United States, and it accounts for one-third of all cancer deaths. Limited data concerning tobacco treatment among patients with cancer are available. In addition, these patients often have complicated medical histories and are taking multiple medications. No clear, published procedures exist to help the healthcare provider select the proper medication for tobacco cessation in that context. OBJECTIVES This article describes the screening process established within the Tobacco Treatment Program (TTP) at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center to minimize the risk of prescribing a contraindicated tobacco cessation medication to patients with cancer. The screening process developed and used by the TTP is presented as a viable model for selecting appropriate tobacco cessation medications for patients with cancer. METHODS The electronic medical record of each patient who uses tobacco is carefully reviewed once he or she is scheduled for a consultation. A summary is produced with a standardized template and used later as a template for the medical provider evaluation. Precautions are put in place with consideration of the characteristics of each of the tobacco cessation medications (e.g., mechanism of action, route of administration, interactions with other medications, possible side effects, contraindications). Since 2006, the TTP has had more than 4,000 new patients and more than 39,000 follow-up visits. FINDINGS Because each patient with cancer has unique medical, psychological, and social circumstances, the process of selecting the optimal tobacco cessation medication needs to be individualized. Oncology healthcare providers should follow some form of screening to tailor a medication plan to each patient.

Nicotine dependence has been suggested to be related to reinforcement sensitivity, which encompasses behavioral predispositions either to avoid aversive (behavioral inhibition) or to approach appetitive (behavioral activation) stimuli. Reinforcement sensitivity may shape motives for nicotine use and offer potential targets for personalized smoking cessation therapy. However, little is known regarding how reinforcement sensitivity is related to motivational processes implicated in the maintenance of smoking. Additionally, women and men differ in reinforcement sensitivity, and such difference may cause distinct relationships between reinforcement sensitivity and motivational processes for female and male smokers. In this study, the authors characterized reinforcement sensitivity in relation to affect, smoking-related reinforcement motives, and affective responses, using self-report and psychophysiological measures, in over 200 smokers before treating them. The Behavioral Inhibition/Activation Scales (BIS/BAS; Carver & White, 1994) was used to measure reinforcement sensitivity. In female and male smokers, BIS was similarly associated with negative affect and negative reinforcement of smoking. However, positive affect was positively associated with BAS Drive scores in male smokers, and this association was reversed in female smokers. BIS was positively associated with corrugator electromyographic reactivity toward negative stimuli and left frontal electroencephalogram alpha asymmetry. Female and male smokers showed similar relationships for these physiological measures. These findings suggest that reinforcement sensitivity underpins important motivational processes (e.g., affect), and gender is a moderating factor for these relationships. Future personalized smoking intervention, particularly among more dependent treatment-seeking smokers, may experiment to target individual differences in reinforcement sensitivity. (PsycINFO Database Record

Some physicians have negative attitudes and beliefs towards patients with addiction. Moreover, few residents are inclined towards a subspecialty fellowship in addiction psychiatry. We aimed to determine if a one-day educational conference could facilitate attitudinal change among 52 general psychiatry residents. Significant changes (p < 0.05) in attitudes were reported following the conference, including enhanced beliefs that physicians can motivate their addicted patients to seek treatment and increased physician interest in pursuing advanced addiction training. A one-day educational intervention may be effective in improving professional attitudes toward addiction treatment by reinforcing previously acquired medical education. The duration of these changes remains to be determined.