Park, Elyse R

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.

Importance Numerous studies show that early palliative care improves quality of life and other key outcomes in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, although most lack access to this evidence-based model of care. Objective To evaluate whether delivering early palliative care via secure video vs in-person visits has an equivalent effect on quality of life in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, multisite, comparative effectiveness trial from June 14, 2018, to May 4, 2023, at 22 US cancer centers among 1250 patients within 12 weeks of diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and 548 caregivers. Intervention Participants were randomized to meet with a specialty-trained palliative care clinician every 4 weeks either via video visit or in person in the outpatient clinic from the time of enrollment and throughout the course of disease. The video visit group had an initial in-person visit to establish rapport, followed by subsequent virtual visits. Main Outcomes and Measures Equivalence of the effect of video visit vs in-person early palliative care on quality of life at week 24 per the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire (equivalence margin of ±4 points; score range: 0-136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life). Participants completed study questionnaires at enrollment and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Results By 24 weeks, participants (mean age, 65.5 years; 54.0% women; 82.7% White) had a mean of 4.7 (video) and 4.9 (in-person) early palliative care encounters. Patient-reported quality-of-life scores were equivalent between groups (video mean, 99.7 vs in-person mean, 97.7; difference, 2.0 [90% CI, 0.1-3.9]; P = .04 for equivalence). Rate of caregiver participation in visits was lower for video vs in-person early palliative care (36.6% vs 49.7%; P &amp;lt; .001). Study groups did not differ in caregiver quality of life, patient coping, or patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or prognostic perceptions. Conclusions and Relevance The delivery of early palliative care virtually vs in person demonstrated equivalent effects on quality of life in patients with advanced NSCLC, underscoring the considerable potential for improving access to this evidence-based care model through telehealth delivery. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03375489

Early integrated palliative care (EIPC) significantly improves clinical outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. Telehealth may be a useful tool to deliver EIPC sustainably and equitably. Palliative care clinicians completed a survey regarding their perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and benefits of using telehealth video visits for delivering EIPC for patients with advanced lung cancer. Forty-eight clinicians across 22 cancer centers completed the survey between May and July 2022. Most (91.7%) agreed that telehealth increases access to EIPC and simplifies the process for patients to receive EIPC (79.2%). Clinicians noted that the elderly, those in rural areas, and those with less-resourced backgrounds have greater difficulty using telehealth. Perceived barriers were largely patient-based factors, including technological literacy, internet and device availability, and patient preferences. Clinicians agreed that several organizational factors facilitated telehealth EIPC delivery, including technological infrastructure (85.4%), training (83.3%), and support from study coordinators (81.3%). Other barriers included systems-based factors, such as insurance reimbursement and out-of-state coverage restrictions. Patient-, organization-, and systems-based factors are all important to providing and improving access to telehealth EIPC services. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of telehealth EIPC and how policies and interventions may improve access to and dissemination of this care modality.

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.

Although the harmful effects of smoking after a cancer diagnosis have been clearly demonstrated, many patients continue to smoke cigarettes during treatment and beyond. The NCCN Guidelines for Smoking Cessation emphasize the importance of smoking cessation in all patients with cancer and seek to establish evidence-based recommendations tailored to the unique needs and concerns of patients with cancer. The recommendations contained herein describe interventions for cessation of all combustible tobacco products (eg, cigarettes, cigars, hookah), including smokeless tobacco products. However, recommendations are based on studies of cigarette smoking. The NCCN Smoking Cessation Panel recommends that treatment plans for all patients with cancer who smoke include the following 3 tenets that should be done concurrently: (1) evidence-based motivational strategies and behavior therapy (counseling), which can be brief; (2) evidence-based pharmacotherapy; and (3) close follow-up with retreatment as needed.

Abstract BACKGROUND The Food and Drug Administration recently issued guidance on conducting qualitative research to support patient-focused drug development. In prior FDA submissions, qualitative data has been critical to demonstrate the content validity of and meaningfulness of change in quantitative trial endpoints. Qualitative patient interviews embedded within neuro-oncology trials can supplement traditional quantitative measures by providing nuanced information on patients’ treatment priorities, benefit/risk assessments, and quality of life. METHODS We interviewed people with neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2) in stage one of the brigatinib arm of a multicenter, phase II, adaptive platform-basket trial for progressive NF2-related tumors (NCT04374305). Transcripts were coded by two analysts using a hybrid inductive/deductive framework; cross-cutting themes were generated using the Framework Method. RESULTS 16/20 trial enrollees participated in interviews May 2021-March 2022. The radiographic response rate (volume shrinkage ≥20% from baseline) at 6 months for target and non-target tumors was 5% and 22%, respectively. However, most participants rated their change in overall status as minimally (10/16) or much (3/16) improved. Several participants acknowledged their tumor size had not changed significantly but felt tumor stability was an improvement over previously accelerated growth rates; this importantly allowed them to avoid or postpone future surgery. Participants also valued prevention of symptomatic decline, minimal impact of side effects on social roles and activities, the convenience of oral medication, and the sense of hope and agency gained from participating in a trial. CONCLUSIONS Virtual, in-depth qualitative interviews were feasible across multiple sites and provided unique information on NF2 patients’ conceptualization of clinical benefit. Qualitative interviews embedded within neuro-oncology trials can reveal 1) whether trial design and choice of outcome measures align with patient priorities; 2) whether and how new treatments improve patients’ quality of life; and 3) what degree of change in quantitative measures such as radiographic progression are clinically meaningful.

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.