Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer

Zeng, Lingfeng; Yu, Xiaolian; Yu, Tong-Fu; Xiao, Jian‐Hui; Huang, Yushan

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011751

Cited by 15 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The intervention proposed is a behavioural intervention as it was repeatedly delivered in order to initiate behavioural change 24 . In particular, subjects received face-to-face individualized brief advice based on risk communication for 15–30 minutes from the smoking cessation counselors, followed by exhaled carbon monoxide level assessment measured by using smokerlyzer (Bedfont® Scientific, Harrietsham, UK).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Helping cancer patients quit smoking using brief advice based on risk communication: A randomized controlled trial

Wang

Lam

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This randomized controlled trial aimed to examine the effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention using a risk communication approach. A total of 528 smoking cancer patients were randomly allocated either into an intervention group (n = 268) to receive brief advice based on risk communication by a nurse counselor or a control group (n = 260) to receive standard care. Subjects in both groups received a smoking cessation booklet. Patient follow-ups were at 1 week and at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. No significant differences were found in self-reported point-prevalence 7-day abstinence between the intervention and control groups at 6 months (15.7% vs 16.5%; OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59–1.50). The rate of at least 50% self-reported reduction of smoking at 6 months, was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (16.8% vs 12.3%; OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.88–2.35). The biochemically validated quit rate at the 6-month follow-up was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (5.2% vs 3.8%; OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.60–3.16). These data suggest that advice based on risk communication was not effective for quitting but improved the rate of smoking reduction among smoking cancer patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Helping cancer patients quit smoking using brief advice based on risk communication: A randomized controlled trial

Wang

Lam

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To some extent, the inclusion or exclusion of observational studies can explain why some ongoing or unpublished studies were not identified by searching CENT RAL, as it does not include observational studies [5]. The inclusion criteria for Cochrane reviews was limited to controlled trials, however, several of these also included observational studies [14][15][16][17]. Although excluding such Cochrane reviews improved the overall sensitivity, it still remained unsatisfactory.…”

Section: Results In Relation To Prior Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trial registration is insufficient: a cross-sectional study

Banno

Tsujimoto

Kataoka

2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: While conducting systemic reviews, searching for ongoing or unpublished trials is critical to address publication bias. As of April 2019, records of ongoing or unpublished randomized and/or quasi-randomized controlled trials registered in the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov are available in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). These records registered in CENTRAL include studies published since the inception of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. Whether systematic reviewers can search CENTRAL to identify ongoing or unpublished trials instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov is unknown. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. A consecutive sample of ongoing or unpublished studies published from June 1, 2019 to December 27, 2019 was selected from the Cochrane Reviews. The sensitivity and the number needed to read (NNR) were assessed from among the studies selected from CENT RAL instead of ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov and also assessed the characteristics of studies not identified by searching CENTRAL. Results: In total, 247 records from 50 Cochrane reviews were included; of these, 200 were identified by searching CENTRAL, whereas the remaining 47 records were not. The sensitivity of searching CENTRAL was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76, 0.85). The NNR was 115 (95% CI: 101, 133). The 47 unidentified studies were registered through ClinicalTrials.gov or ICTRP. Sixteen unidentified studies were not indexed in CENTRAL. Conclusions: For systematic reviewers, searching CENTRAL could not substitute for searching ClinicalTrials.gov and/ or ICTRP. Systematic reviewers should not only search CENTRAL but also ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished trials.

show abstract

“…Despite certain substantiated benefits of smoking cessation [ 6 ], insufficient direct evidence is available about whether smoking cessation improves survival among people diagnosed with cancer [ 2 , 9 – 11 ]. For example, a 2019 Cochrane Systematic Review [ 12 ] did not identify any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the effect of smoking cessation interventions on lung cancer survival. Particularly informative would be evidence related to the magnitude of survival benefit related to early smoking cessation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking cessation and survival among people diagnosed with non-metastatic cancer

Barnett

Gehr

et al. 2020

BMC Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We aimed to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on survival among people diagnosed with cancer. Methods: We used data from a Comprehensive Community Cancer Program that is part of a large urban safety-net hospital system. Eligible patients were diagnosed with primary invasive solid tumors between 2013 and 2015, and were current smokers at time of diagnosis. Our exposure of interest was initiation of smoking cessation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis. We estimated inverse probability weighted restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences and risk ratio (RR) for all cause 3-year mortality. Results: Our study population comprised 369 patients, of whom 42% were aged < 55 years, 59% were male, 44% were racial/ethnic minorities, and 59% were uninsured. The 3-year RMST was 1.8 (95% CL: − 1.5, 5.1) months longer for individuals who initiated smoking cessation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis. The point estimate for risk of 3-year mortality was lower for initiation of smoking cessation within 6 months of diagnosis compared with no initiation within 6 months (RR = 0.72, 95% CL: 0.37, 1.4). Conclusions: Our point estimates suggest longer 3-year survival, but the results are compatible with 1.5 month shorter or 5.1 longer 3-year overall survival after smoking cessation within 6 months of cancer diagnosis. Future studies with larger sample sizes that test the comparative effectiveness of different smoking cessation strategies are needed for more detailed evidence to inform decision-making about the effect of smoking cessation on survival among cancer patients. Implications for Cancer survivors: The benefits of smoking cessation after cancer diagnosis may include longer survival, but the magnitude of benefit is unclear.

show abstract

Interventions for smoking cessation in people diagnosed with lung cancer

Cited by 15 publications

References 36 publications

Helping cancer patients quit smoking using brief advice based on risk communication: A randomized controlled trial

Helping cancer patients quit smoking using brief advice based on risk communication: A randomized controlled trial

Using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify clinical trial registration is insufficient: a cross-sectional study

Smoking cessation and survival among people diagnosed with non-metastatic cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About