Gritz, Ellen R.

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.

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate oncologists' preferences for methods to increase delivery of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients. Methods: An email list of 6844 physicians at NCI Designated Cancer Centers was generated using publically available online resources. An online survey was conducted in the fall of 2013 to assess tobacco assessment and cessation practices by physicians, barriers to providing cessation support, and methods to improve access to cessation services for cancer patients. Results of this survey are compared to similar survey findings by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). Results: Of 6844 electronically delivered survey invitations, we received 887 responses (13%). Consistent with previously published ASCO and IASLC surveys, 90% of physicians agreed that tobacco use by patients affects cancer treatment outcomes (vs. 87-92% in ASCO/IASLC), 90% of respondents reported that they ask patients about their tobacco use (vs. 90% in ASCO/IASLC), and 83% routinely advise tobacco users to quit (vs. 80-82% in ASCO/IASLC). However, only 37% of respondents regularly discussed medications, and 35% actively treated patients (vs. 39-44% in ASCO/IASLC). Most (71%) responding oncologists preferred cessation support be provided at the initial patient consult, and few (11%) were concerned about the use of tobacco cessation medications. Lack of time and lack of available resources were the dominant barriers to the administration of tobacco cessation support to cancer patients by oncologists. Only 10% of oncologists believed they were adequately trained to counsel patients on smoking cessation, but 55% reported that training for someone else in their clinic would increase tobacco cessation support. When asked what provider they prefer to administer cessation support to cancer patients, 16% reported a primary care physician, 18% reported a mid-level (nurse practitioner or physician assistant), 50% reported any other clinical staff, and only 1% preferred to personally provide cessation support. Whereas most (58%) oncologists preferred to have dedicated cessation services within their institution, 38% reported they would use dedicated services either within, or outside their institution. Conclusions: Most oncologists at NCI Designated Cancer Centers recognize the importance of tobacco cessation, but prefer to have tobacco cessation support for cancer patients provided by another trained professional. Citation Format: Alix Pommerenke, Anthony Alberg, Thomas H. Brandon, Ivana Croghan, Michael K. Cummings, Carolyn Dresler, Ellen R. Gritz, Roy Herbst, Scott Leischow, James R. Marshall, Benjamin Toll, Graham Warren. Physician preferences in tobacco cessation support for cancer patients: A survey of physicians at National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Centers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 5049. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-5049

Abstract Background: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) was a 7-year randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy of finasteride for the prevention of prostate cancer with a primary outcome of histologically determined prevalence of prostate cancer at the end of 7 years. Methods: A systematic modeling process using logistic regression identified factors available at year 6 that are associated with end-of-study (EOS) biopsy adherence at year 7, stratified by whether participants were ever prompted for a prostate biopsy by year 6. Final models were evaluated for discrimination. At year 6, 13,590 men were available for analysis. Results: Participants were more likely to have the EOS biopsy if they were adherent to study visit schedules and procedures and/or were in good health (P < 0.01). Participants at larger sites and/or sites that received retention and adherence grants were also more likely to have the EOS biopsy (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Our results show good adherence to study requirements 1 year before the EOS biopsy was associated with greater odds that a participant would comply with the invasive EOS requirement. Impact: Monitoring adherence behaviors may identify participants at risk of nonadherence to more demanding study end points. Such information could help frame adherence intervention strategies in future trials. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(8); 1638–48. ©2014 AACR.