Land, Stephanie R

Abstract Introduction Tobacco use can adversely affect cancer treatment outcomes, yet routine assessment has not been fully incorporated into oncology clinical trials. In 2012, rates of tobacco use assessment in actively accruing National Cancer Institute (NCI) trials were < 30% at enrollment and < 5% during follow-up, prompting efforts by the NCI and major oncology associations to promote and standardize tobacco assessment in oncology research and practice (including development of the Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire [C-TUQ]). This study was conducted to re-examine assessment patterns in 2022 (including utilization of the C-TUQ) and evaluate progress. Aims and Methods Protocols and forms from 144 actively accruing (as of December 2022) NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) trials were evaluated using a standardized coding instrument. Results Of 144 trials, 49.3% assessed tobacco use at enrollment (43.8% measured cigarettes, 14.8% e-cigarettes, and ≤ 12.5% other tobacco products). Approximately 20.8% used at least one C-TUQ question, but only 3.5% used all four core items. Few measured second-hand smoke exposure (3.5%) or quit interest (2.8%). At follow-up, 8.3% assessed any form of tobacco use. Assessment rates were higher in smoking-related cancer trials. Conclusions Almost half of the accruing trials did not measure any tobacco use and fewer used the C-TUQ. There was a ≥ 70% increase in tobacco use assessment at enrollment and follow-up compared to 2012, an improvement with room for further enhancement. Standardized tobacco use information enhances investigators’ ability to estimate cancer treatment efficacy, offer equitable cessation support, and accurately understand the impact of tobacco use on treatment outcomes. Implications In 2012, few (< 30%) cancer clinical trials evaluated tobacco use at enrollment and < 5% did so during follow-up, prompting efforts to promote and standardize tobacco assessment in oncology research and practice (including the development of the Cancer Patient Tobacco Use Questionnaire [C-TUQ]). The present study builds on this foundational paper and finds an overall increase in tobacco use assessment with room for improvement: 49.3% of trials in 2022 assessed tobacco use at enrollment and 8.3% did so during follow-up. About 20.8% used at least one C-TUQ question, highlighting that tobacco use assessment is not yet fully incorporated into oncology clinical trials.

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 < 0.01) and individuals not living with another person who smokes (vs. living with; OR, 8.07; P = 0 < 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.

Abstract 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.