IMPORTANCE Persistent smoking may cause adverse outcomes among patients with cancer. Many cancer centers have not fully implemented evidence-based tobacco treatment into routine care.OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness of sustained telephone counseling and medication (intensive treatment) compared with shorter-term telephone counseling and medication advice (standard treatment) to assist patients recently diagnosed with cancer to quit smoking. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis unblinded randomized clinical trial was conducted at Massachusetts General Hospital/Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Adults who had smoked 1 cigarette or more within 30 days, spoke English or Spanish, and had recently diagnosed breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, gynecological, head and neck, lung, lymphoma, or melanoma cancers were eligible. Enrollment occurred between November 2013 and July 2017; assessments were completed by the end of February 2018.INTERVENTIONS Participants randomized to the intensive treatment (n = 153) and the standard treatment (n = 150) received 4 weekly telephone counseling sessions and medication advice. The intensive treatment group also received 4 biweekly and 3 monthly telephone counseling sessions and choice of Food and Drug Administration-approved cessation medication (nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, or varenicline). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence tobacco abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were treatment utilization rates. RESULTS Among 303 patients who were randomized (mean age, 58.3 years; 170 women [56.1%]), 221 (78.1%) completed the trial. Six-month biochemically confirmed quit rates were 34.5% (n = 51 in the intensive treatment group) vs 21.5% (n = 29 in the standard treatment group) (difference, 13.0% [95% CI, 3.0%-23.3%]; odds ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.13-3.27]; P < .02). The median number of counseling sessions completed was 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) in the intensive treatment group. A total of 97 intensive treatment participants (77.0%) vs 68 standard treatment participants (59.1%) reported cessation medication use (difference, 17.9% [95% CI, 6.3%-29.5%]; odds ratio, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.32-4.04]; P = .003). The most common adverse events in the intensive treatment and standard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccups (n = 4 and n = 1), mouth irritation (n = 4 and n = 0), difficulty sleeping (n = 3 and n = 2), and vivid dreams (n = 3 and n = 2). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among smokers recently diagnosed with cancer in 2 NationalCancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, sustained counseling and provision of free cessation medication compared with 4-week counseling and medication advice resulted in higher 6-month biochemically confirmed quit rates. However, the generalizability of the study findings is uncertain and requires further research.

Purpose Many cancer survivors report experiencing somatic symptoms as well as elevated stress. Theoretical models have suggested that physical symptoms generate subjective stress via fears of recurrence or progression. To date, this indirect effect has not been established empirically. This study aimed to provide preliminary evidence as to whether fear of recurrence or progression is an intermediary between somatic symptom severity and perceived stress among heterogeneous cancer survivors. Methods Adult cancer survivors (N = 67; median 2.4 years since diagnosis; 34% male) presenting at a hospital survivorship clinic completed measures assessing somatic symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15)), perceived stress (four-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4)), and fear of recurrence or progression (Assessment of Survivor Concerns (ASC)). Interrelatedness among variables was assessed using Pearson correlations. Indirect effects were modeled using 5000-iteration bootstrapping. Results Survivors endorsed a range of somatic symptom severity (29% minimal, 39% low, 18% medium, and 14% high). Somatic symptoms, perceived stress, and fear of recurrence or progression were all significantly positively correlated (rs 0.29 to 0.47). Controlling for time since diagnosis, there was a significant indirect effect of somatic symptom severity on stress via fear of recurrence or progression [B = 0.06, SE = 0.04 (95% CI 0.01–0.16)]. The model accounted for more than one third of the variance in perceived stress [R2 = 0.35, F(3,54) = 9.59, p < 0.001]. Conclusions Survivors with greater somatic symptoms tended to report higher levels of stress, due in part to elevated fears of recurrence or progression. Our findings support concerns about recurrence or progression as a mechanism underlying stress states in cancer survivors. Efforts to assist survivors with stress management should teach strategies for managing cancer-related uncertainties stemming from somatic symptoms.

BackgroundSignificant health disparities exist between limited English proficient and English-proficient patients. Little is known about the impact of language services on chronic disease outcomes such as for diabetes.Methods/Principal FindingsTo determine whether the amount and type of language services received during primary care visits had an impact on diabetes-related outcomes (hospitalization, emergency room utilization, glycemic control) in limited English proficient patients, a retrospective cohort design was utilized. Hospital and medical record data was examined for 1425 limited English proficient patients in the Cambridge Health Alliance diabetes registry. We categorized patients receiving usual care into 7 groups based on the amount and combination of language services (language concordant providers, formal interpretation and nothing) received at primary care visits during a 9 month period. Bivariate analyses and multiple logistic regression were used to determine relationships between language service categories and outcomes in the subsequent 6 months. Thirty-one percent of patients (445) had no documentation of interpreter use or seeing a language concordant provider in any visits. Patients who received 100% of their primary care visits with language concordant providers were least likely to have diabetes-related emergency department visits compared to other groups (p<0001) in the following 6 months. Patients with higher numbers of co-morbidities were more likely to receive formal interpretation.Conclusions/SignificanceLanguage concordant providers may help reduce health care utilization for limited English proficient patients with diabetes. However, given the lack of such providers in sufficient numbers to meet patients' communication needs, strategies are needed to both increase their numbers and ensure that the highest risk patients receive the most appropriate language services. In addition, systems serving diverse populations must clarify why some limited English proficient patients do not receive language services at some or all of their visits and whether this has an impact on quality of care.