Tempany, Clare M.

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.

PurposeTo evaluate multicenter repeatability and reproducibility of T1 and T2 maps generated using MR fingerprinting (MRF) in the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology MRI system phantom and in prostatic tissues.MethodsMRF experiments were performed on 5 different 3 Tesla MRI scanners at 3 different institutions: University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center (Cleveland, OH), Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA) in the United States, and Diagnosticos da America (Rio de Janeiro, RJ) in Brazil. Raw MRF data were reconstructed using a Gadgetron‐based MRF online reconstruction pipeline to yield quantitative T1 and T2 maps. The repeatability of T1 and T2 values over 6 measurements in the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology MRI system phantom was assessed to demonstrate intrascanner variation. The reproducibility between the 4 clinical scanners was assessed to demonstrate interscanner variation. The same‐day test–retest normal prostate mean T1 and T2 values from peripheral zone and transitional zone were also compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman analysis.ResultsThe intrascanner variation of values measured using MRF was less than 2% for T1 and 4.7% for T2 for relaxation values, within the range of 307.7 to 2360 ms for T1 and 19.1 to 248.5 ms for T2. Interscanner measurements showed that the T1 variation was less than 4.9%, and T2 variation was less than 8.1% between multicenter scanners. Both T1 and T2 values in in vivo prostatic tissue demonstrated high test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.92) and strong linear correlation (R2 > 0.840).ConclusionProstate MRF measurements of T1 and T2 are repeatable and reproducible between MRI scanners at different centers on different continents for the above measurement ranges.

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.

There is increasing scrutiny from healthcare organizations towards the utility and associated costs of imaging. MRI has traditionally been used as a high‐end modality, and although shown extremely important for many types of clinical scenarios, it has been suggested as too expensive by some. This editorial will try and explain how value should be addressed and gives some insights and practical examples of how value of MRI can be increased. It requires a global effort to increase accessibility, value for money, and impact on patient management. We hope this editorial sheds some light and gives some indications of where the field may wish to address some of its research to proactively demonstrate the value of MRI.Level of Evidence: 5Technical Efficacy: Stage 5J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e14–e25.