Herman, B.

PURPOSE Systematic integration of tobacco cessation treatment within cancer centers is needed to improve smoking cessation outcomes among cancer patients and survivors. The current study characterizes baseline rates of tobacco use, use of cessation support, and changes in tobacco use over time among 756 participants diagnosed with cancer and enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants completed surveys at trial enrollment and at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient characteristics and selected items from the Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ). Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the time point effect on tobacco product use. RESULTS At baseline, 11% of participants (n = 740) currently smoked cigarettes. Among participants with data available at all time points (n = 443), prevalence of current smoking was stable over time, with 7.2% of participants (n = 32) reporting current smoking at baseline, 7.0% (n = 31) at the 3-month follow-up assessment, and 6.8% (n = 30) at the 6-month follow-up assessment. Most participants (n = 77/104) who smoked cigarettes within the year prior to their cancer diagnosis continued smoking after their diagnosis, and during (n = 44/72) and following completion (n = 30/46) of their treatment. Sixty-two percent of participants (n = 81) who were currently smoking at baseline reported using smoking cessation medication and 32.1% reported use of nonpharmacologic smoking cessation support since their cancer diagnosis. In longitudinal analyses, the odds of using cigarettes since their cancer diagnosis, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up was higher than the odds of using cigarettes for the past 30 days at baseline (odds ratio [OR] = 1.97, OR = 1.62, and OR = 1.50, respectively; all p s < .01). CONCLUSION Smoking persists over time among patients with cancer enrolled in therapeutic cancer trials. Findings highlight the importance of increasing access to integrated and longitudinal smoking cessation support.

AbstractBackgroundTobacco use is associated with adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Socioeconomic determinants influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment; little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among patients diagnosed with cancer.MethodsA modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C‐TUQ) was administered to patients enrolled in nine ECOG‐ACRIN clinical trials. We examined associations of NSD with (1) smoking status, (2) receiving tobacco cessation assessment and support, and (3) cessation behaviors. NSD was classified by tertiles of the Area Deprivation Index. Associations between NSD and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression.ResultsA total of 740 patients completing the C‐TUQ were 70% male, 94% White, 3% Hispanic, mean age 58.8 years. Cancer diagnoses included leukemia 263 (36%), lymphoma 141 (19%), prostate 131 (18%), breast 79 (11%), melanoma 69 (9%), myeloma 53 (7%), and head and neck 4 (0.5%). A total of 402 (54%) never smoked, 257 (35%) had formerly smoked, and 81 (11%) were currently smoking. Patients in high disadvantaged neighborhoods were approximately four times more likely to report current smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.69–7.54; p = .0009), and more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.64–10.98; p = .0029), but less likely to report receiving counseling (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02–0.58; p = .0086) versus those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods.ConclusionsGreater neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with smoking but less cessation support. Increased cessation support in cancer care is needed, particularly for patients from disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Abstract Background: While cigarette smoking has declined among the U.S. general population, sale and use of non-cigarette alternative tobacco products (ATP; e.g., e-cigarettes, cigars) and dual use of cigarettes/ATPs are rising. Little is known about ATP use patterns in cancer survivors enrolled in clinical trials. We investigated prevalence of tobacco product use, and factors associated with past 30-day use, among patients with cancer in national trials. Methods: Cancer survivors (N = 756) enrolled in 9 ECOG-ACRIN clinical trials (2017–2021) completed a modified Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) which assessed baseline cigarette and ATP use since cancer diagnosis and in the past 30 days. Results: Patients were on average 59 years old, 70% male, and the mean time since cancer diagnosis was 26 months. Since diagnosis, cigarettes (21%) were the most common tobacco product used, followed by smokeless tobacco use (5%), cigars (4%), and e-cigarettes (2%). In the past 30 days, 12% of patients reported smoking cigarettes, 4% cigars, 4% using smokeless tobacco, and 2% e-cigarettes. Since cancer diagnosis, 5.5% of the sample reported multiple tobacco product use, and 3.0% reported multiple product use in the past 30 days. Males (vs. females; OR 4.33; P = 0 &lt; 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 &lt; 0.01) were more likely to use ATPs only versus cigarettes only in the past 30 days. Conclusions: Among patients with cancer, cigarettes were the most prevalent tobacco product reported. Impact: Regardless, ATPs and multiple tobacco product use should be routinely assessed in cancer care settings.

6514 Background: Tobacco use is a modifiable risk factor for adverse outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer. Despite ASCO’s recommendation for assessment and treatment of tobacco use, integration into cancer care is suboptimal. Socioeconomic contexts influence access and utilization of tobacco treatment, but little is known about the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage (NSD) and tobacco assessment, assistance, and cessation among cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials. Methods: The NCI Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire (C-TUQ) was centrally administered to participants enrolled in 10 ECOG ACRIN clinical trials (9 therapeutic, 1 imaging). We examined associations of NSD with patient-reported rates of receiving brief tobacco cessation support (i.e., Ask, Assist (counseling)) and cessation (past 30d quit attempts and duration). NSD was measured using the national Area Deprivation Index (ADI) based on participant’s zip code. Associations between ADI (low, intermediate, and high) and tobacco variables were evaluated using logistic regression and ANOVA. Results: 740 patients, completing the C-TUQ between June 2017-October 2021, can be classified as 402 (54%) never smokers, 81 (11%) current smokers, and 257 (35%) former smokers. Patients were 70% male; 94% white; 3% Hispanic; mean age 58.8 (SD 9.0). Cancer diagnoses were 36% leukemia; 19% lymphoma, 18% prostate, 11% breast; 9% melanoma, 7% myeloma, and 0.5% head and neck. Patients were categorized into high (33%), intermediate (34%) and low (33%) disadvantaged neighborhoods. Patients in high (vs. low) disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to report being asked about smoking (OR = 3.90; 95% CI (confidence interval), 1.61 to 9.46; p = 0.0062) but less likely to report receiving counseling to help quit smoking (OR = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.73; p = 0.0234). Patients from high disadvantaged neighborhoods had the shortest quit duration, followed by patients from intermediate and low disadvantaged neighborhoods (mean = 145.78, 187.66, and 210.98 months, respectively, p = 0.0372). Conclusions: Greater socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased assessment of tobacco use but decreased tobacco treatment referral, and the shortest quit duration. More research is needed to promote increased referral to tobacco treatment for individuals with cancer from disadvantaged neighborhoods to promote and sustain cessation.

4034 Background: Colorectal cancer screening must be repeated on a regular basis. Understanding patient perceptions and willingness to be rescreened will help to determine future compliance rates. The purpose of this study was to compare National CT Colonography Trial (NCTCT) screening participant experiences with CT colonography (CTC) and optical colonoscopy (OC), willingness to return for each procedure, and procedure preference. Methods: NCTCT participants underwent a single bowel preparation (BP). Participants were scheduled to receive CTC, followed by sedation and OC. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire two weeks post-exam on physical discomfort and embarrassment during BP, CTC and OC and willingness to repeat CTC and OC (with or without BP) at different time intervals. McNemar's Test and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Results: 2310 of 2600 patients (89%) responded (1224 women, 1086 men). Mean age was 58.39 years (range 50–86). The participant population was 85% Caucasian, 11% African American and 4% other. Severe discomfort was reported by 7.1% participants with BP, 6.3% with CTC, and 2.2% with OC. Severe embarrassment was reported by 1.6% participants with BP, 1.3% with CTC, and 0.7% with OC. Forty-six percent of participants preferred CTC, 27.4% reported no preference, and 24.9% preferred OC (p<0.001). Repeat screening with CTC is currently recommended every 5 years and with OC every 10 years. 80.5% of the participants were willing to be screened again with CTC in 5 years and 97.5 % were willing to be screened again with OC in 10 years (p<0.001). If the screening interval for CTC were extended to ten years, 93.7% of participants were willing to return for screening (p<0.001). If BP were unnecessary, 91.0% were willing to be rescreened with CTC in 5 years and 97.5% were willing to be rescreened with OC in 10 years (p<0.001). Conclusions: NCTCT participants preferred CTC to OC, but their willingness to undergo repeat CTC was limited by the shorter interval between screenings currently recommended for CTC as opposed to OC. Improvements in technology that would eliminate the need for bowel preparation or extend the recommended screening interval would likely improve adherence to recommended repeat screening. [Table: see text]