PURPOSE: Smoking after a cancer diagnosis is linked to cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, among other adverse outcomes. Yet, 10%-20% of US cancer survivors are current smokers. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco treatment in cancer care facilities is widely recommended, yet rarely accomplished. This study focuses on the early outcomes of a population-based tobacco treatment program integrated within an National Cancer Institute–designated cancer center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The sample consists of 26,365 patients seen at the cancer center during the first 18 months of program implementation. The study is a retrospective chart review of patients' tobacco use and, among current users, patients' treatment referral response. RESULTS: More than 99% of patients were screened for tobacco use. Current (past month) use was observed in 21.05% of patients; cigarettes were the most popular product. Only 17.22% of current users accepted a referral for tobacco treatment; among current users who declined, the majority were not ready to quit (65.84%) or wanted to quit on their own (27.01%). Multiple demographic variables were associated with tobacco use and treatment referral response outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite cancer diagnosis presenting a teachable moment for tobacco cessation, patients with cancer may not be ready to quit or engage with treatment. Clinically proven strategies to increase motivation, prompt quit attempts, and encourage treatment use should be key components of tobacco treatment delivery to patients with cancer.

Objective: Cervical cancer survivors (CCS) tend to smoke cigarettes at rates much higher than other cancer survivors and women in the general population. However, few studies take a deep dive into the smoking behavior of cervical cancer survivors and none focus on the barriers they experience related to smoking cessation. This study aimed to describe CCS’ tobacco use characteristics, quit attempts, and barriers to quit success. Method: In a concurrent mixed-method design, 50 CCS (94% White nonHispanic) who were diagnosed in the past 5 years and were current smokers at diagnosis provided data via standardized questionnaire and semi-structured interview. Results: More than three-quarters of participants were current smokers at the time of study participation, 25.6% of whom also reported noncigarette tobacco use (e.g., electronic cigarette, cigar, snus). Seventy percent of participants reported making at least one 24 hr quit attempt postdiagnosis, with 61.5% of current smokers preferring to quit without professional advice or counseling and 51.3% preferring to quit without medication assistance. Four themes emerged regarding barriers to smoking cessation: motivation and readiness; confidence and uncertainty; triggers; and social and environmental factors. Conclusions: The rate of smoking in CCS is remarkably high, which may partly be explained by negative attitudes toward and low use of evidence-based treatment as well as multi-level barriers to smoking cessation.

Objective The prevalence of smoking among cervical cancer survivors typically exceeds what is found among women in the general population and other cancer survivors. Yet, there is a dearth of literature on risk and protective factors related to smoking among cervical cancer survivors, especially when it comes to identification of variables that are amendable to intervention. To help fill this gap in the literature, this qualitative study examines the nature of smoking‐related causal attributions and risk perceptions in cervical cancer survivors who smoked at cancer diagnosis. Methods Participants are 21 female cervical cancer survivors (M=45.7, SD=8.4 years old), all diagnosed in the past five years. Nearly three‐quarters of participants reported smoking in the past month. Results: Smoking was not uniformly recognized as a cause of cervical cancer (whether in general or participants' own cancer); the link between smoking and lung, head‐neck, and other cancers was more readily accepted. Despite generally weak endorsements of causal attributions, many participants reported smoking significantly increases risk for poor clinical (e.g., recurrence) and quality of life (e.g., pain) outcomes after cervical cancer diagnosis. Conclusions Findings suggest cervical cancer survivors may not fully understand or appreciate the role of smoking in cervical cancer risk whereas their beliefs about the role of smoking in cervical cancer prognosis are more well‐formed. This study highlights the potential role of causal attributions and risk perceptions in understanding and addressing the smoking‐related experience of cervical cancer survivors.

Purpose Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers. Methods Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients ( n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors. Results Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%). Conclusion Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-023-07649-y.

There are evidence-based treatments for tobacco dependence, but inequities exist in the access to and reach of these treatments. Traditional models of tobacco treatment delivery are “reactive” and typically provide treatment only to patients who are highly motivated to quit and seek out tobacco treatment. Newer models involve “proactive” outreach, with benefits that include increasing access to tobacco treatment, prompting quit attempts among patients with low motivation, addressing health disparities, and improving population-level quit rates. However, the definition of “proactive” is not clear, and adoption has been slow. This commentary introduces a comprehensive yet flexible model of proactive outreach and describes how proactive outreach can optimize clinical research and care delivery in these domains: (1) identifying the population, (2) offering treatment, and (3) delivering treatment. Dimensions relevant to each domain are the intensity of proactive outreach (low to high) and the extent to which proactive outreach activities rely on human interaction or are facilitated by information technology (IT). Adoption of the proposed proactive outreach model could improve the precision and rigor with which tobacco cessation research and tobacco treatment programs report data, which could have a positive effect on care delivery and patient outcomes.