ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Helping patients to reduce tobacco consumption in oncology: a narrative review



The present overview focuses on evidence of smoking cessation approaches in oncology settings with the aim to provide health personnel a critical perspective on how to help their patients. This narrative review is structured in two main sections: the first one describes the psycho-cognitive variables involved in the decision to continue smoking after a cancer diagnosis and during the treatment; the second section relates methods and tools may be recommended, being evidence-based, to support smoking cessation in oncology settings. Active smoking increases not only susceptibility to common cancers in the general population, but also increases disease severity and comorbidities in cancer patients. Nowadays, scientific evidence has identified many strategies to give up smoking, but a lack of knowledge exists for treatment of nicotine dependence in the cancer population. Health personnel is often ambiguous when approaching the problem, while their contribution is essential in guiding patients towards healthier choices. We argue that smoking treatments for cancer patients deserve more attention and that clinical features, individual characteristics and needs of the patient should be assessed in order to increase the attempts success rate. Health personnel that daily work and interact with cancer patients and their caregivers have a fundamental role in the promotion of the health changing. For this reason, it is important that they have adequate knowledge and resources in order to support cancer patients to stop tobacco cigarette smoking and promoting and healthier lifestyle.
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2798-9
Helping patients toreduce tobacco
consumption inoncology: a narrative review
Claudio Lucchiari1*, Marianna Masiero2,3, Andrea Botturi4 and Gabriella Pravettoni2,3
The present overview focuses on evidence of smoking cessation approaches in oncology settings with the aim to
provide health personnel a critical perspective on how to help their patients. This narrative review is structured in two
main sections: the first one describes the psycho-cognitive variables involved in the decision to continue smoking
after a cancer diagnosis and during the treatment; the second section relates methods and tools may be recom-
mended, being evidence-based, to support smoking cessation in oncology settings. Active smoking increases not
only susceptibility to common cancers in the general population, but also increases disease severity and comor-
bidities in cancer patients. Nowadays, scientific evidence has identified many strategies to give up smoking, but a
lack of knowledge exists for treatment of nicotine dependence in the cancer population. Health personnel is often
ambiguous when approaching the problem, while their contribution is essential in guiding patients towards healthier
choices. We argue that smoking treatments for cancer patients deserve more attention and that clinical features,
individual characteristics and needs of the patient should be assessed in order to increase the attempts success rate.
Health personnel that daily work and interact with cancer patients and their caregivers have a fundamental role in the
promotion of the health changing. For this reason, it is important that they have adequate knowledge and resources
in order to support cancer patients to stop tobacco cigarette smoking and promoting and healthier lifestyle.
Keywords: Oncology, Cigarette smoking, Smoking cessation, Decision-making
© 2016 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.
Tobacco cigarette smoking is the leading cause of pre-
ventable death in the world. In 2011 the World Health
Organization (WHO) declared that smoking caused six
million deaths annually, and in 2030 it will kill eight mil-
lion people each year (WHO 2011).
Bio-physiological evidence suggests that smoking is the
main cause of respiratory diseases (e.g. chronic obstruc-
tive pulmonary disease and pulmonary emphysema),
cardiovascular events (e.g. aneurysm and stroke) and
many cancers (esophagus, larynx, oral cavity, bladder,
stomach, kidney, squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix;
Ehlers and Bronars 2012). Statistical figures confirm that
tobacco dependence causes 30% of all cancers and 80%
of deaths from neck, head, and lung cancer (Morgan etal.
2011). Particularly, about 90% of lung cancer is assign-
able to tobacco cigarette smoking (Nayan etal. 2011).
Despite this evidence, many patients still smoke regu-
larly after a diagnosis of cancer. In 2013 the American
National Cancer Institute published a scientific state-
ment on treating tobacco dependence in the cancer pop-
ulation. e report highlighted that 50% of individuals
with cancer who smoke before diagnosis continue smok-
ing during treatment, and that, for patients who gave up
smoking, the relapse rate was very high (Toll etal. 2013).
Data showed that 23–35 % of head and neck cancer
patients, and 13–20% of lung cancer patients who were
smoking before their diagnosis, continued to smoke after
the diagnosis and during treatment itself (Nayan et al.
2011), while de Bruin-Visser etal. (2012) reported that
35–72% of head and neck cancer patients’ smoke despite
the diagnosis.
Also women with breast cancer are reported as con-
tinuing to smoke after the diagnosis (Land etal. 2011). In
Open Access
1 Department of Philosophy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Page 2 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
this study, cigarette smoking was found to be negatively
correlated to treatment adherence.
Continuing to smoke after a cancer diagnosis may
produce several adverse health outcomes (Cropley etal.
2008). Epidemiological research shows that tobacco
cigarette smoking decreases survival time (Gritz and
Demark-Wahnefried 2009), it increases the risk of second
primary malignancies (Zevallos etal. 2009) and the like-
lihood of recurrences (Schnoll etal. 2004). For instance,
smokers with Hodgkin’s disease have an increased risk
of a second primary lung cancer (McBride and Ostroff
2003) when compared to never-smokers under the same
conditions. Also, it has been shown that tobacco use
decreases survival rate after hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation (Marks et al. 2009; Ehlers etal. 2011).
Furthermore, cigarette smoking decreases treatment effi-
cacy (Waller etal. 2010) and increases complications and
side-effects (Schnoll etal. 2004) for many types of cancer.
In this regard, clinical studies revealed that in head and
neck (Blalock etal. 2011), and lung (Zhang etal. 2009)
cancer patients, smoking behavior decreases the efficacy
of radiotherapy, while increasing drug toxicity and side-
effects (such as impaired pulmonary function, nausea,
and dry mouth) (Nayan etal. 2011). Daniel etal. (2009)
showed that patients with lung cancer who did not dis-
continue smoking reported more pain during the disease
progression than former smokers and non-smokers. Sim-
ilar concerns have also been observed in patients with
bladder and renal cancer (Videtic et al. 2003). Finally,
smoker patients have a high risk of developing postop-
erative complications than do non-smoker patients, for
example showing poor wound healing (omsen et al.
2010a, b; see Table1).
In spite of the evidence, there is still a significant lack
of smoking treatment research for oncology patients. A
cancer diagnosis may provide a useful teachable moment
(Gritz 1991) for quitting smoking, but this chance is fre-
quently undervalued by the healthcare system (Weaver
etal. 2012).
A number of studies reported that oncology patients
actually try to give up, but they generally make their
attempts without help. For example, a recent study by
Vaidya etal. (2014) reported that many patients keep
on smoking even after a diagnosis of lung cancer. Khul-
lar et al. (2013) stated that patients do not receive
enough support from physicians. Indeed, 50% of phy-
sicians do not regularly talk about antismoking strate-
gies with patients. Cooley etal. (2009) have shown that
despite the a broad diffusion of information about the
benefits of smoking cessation after a lung cancer diag-
nosis, few patients actually succeed in their attempt and
find little support from health personnel pre- and post-
surgery. Confirming this evidence, a large online survey
conducted by Warren etal. (2013) in 1507 members of
the International Association for the Study of Lung Can-
cer revealed that though most physicians believes smok-
ing cessation to be an important issues for their patients,
only 40% discuss quit options and only 39% actively sup-
port patients.
Generally, oncologists provide wide-ranging sugges-
tions regarding smoking-related risks, but they do not
give detailed information regarding available treatments,
nor do they offer a support program during the whole
therapeutic journey (Weaver etal. 2012). is view has
been recently supported by a qualitative study conducted
by Champassak et al. (2014), which showed, through a
series of interview, the mismatch between the physicians’
believe of the importance of smoking cessation programs
and the actual behavior during visits. Indeed, physi-
cians report a lack of confidence in their smoking cessa-
tion counseling ability. Furthermore, physicians rarely
reported to use recommended strategies, even when
they are acknowledged. Another particular case is that of
hematologic cancers. Indeed, in a hematological oncol-
ogy department for patients undergoing hematopoietic
stem cell transplantation, quitting is a priority, since
studies exist (Chang etal. 2004) associating smoking with
worse outcomes. Despite this, Ehlers etal. (2011) showed
Table 1 Summary ofthe benets related tosmoking ces-
sation duringand aftercancer treatment
Benets ofsmoking cessation post-diagnosis
Physical dimension
Decreasing the side-effects of the therapy
Increasing treatment efficacy
Overcoming chemo resistance
Improving outcome of the surgery
Counteracting tumor progression
Reducing fatigue
Increasing activity level
Reducing the likelihood of developing second primary malignancies
Avoiding recurrence
Improving survival rate
Psychological dimension
Improving cognitive process
Enhancing psychological well-being
Increasing self-esteem
Reducing blame (when cancer is smoking-related)
Supporting self-efficacy health behavior-related
Improving mood
Health behaviors
Supporting healthy lifestyle
Promoting preventive behavior
Enhancing general quality of life of the patients (e.g. quality of sleep)
Page 3 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
that many hematologic patients continue to smoke after
diagnosis. Also, authors noted the lack of studies address-
ing the issue of helping patients quit smoking (Ehlers and
Bronars 2012), and the training of healthcare profession-
als in the management of the smoker patient.
Starting from this theoretical background, the main
aim of this brief review is to sketch an overview of the
available options to approach smoking dependence in an
oncology setting. In order to achieve this goal, the paper
has been structured into three conceptual sections. e
first section describes the role of the psycho-cognitive
processes that reinforce cigarette smoking behavior in
patients with cancer. e second section discusses the
cognitive-behavioral interventions and smoking cessa-
tion aids, focusing both on advantages and disadvan-
tages, in in-patient and out-patient settings. Finally, we
offer some suggestions for health professionals to over-
come roadblocks and to improve the smoking cessation
success rate in cancer patients.
is narrative review is structured in two main sec-
tions: the first one describes the psycho-cognitive vari-
ables involved in the decision to continue smoking after
a cancer diagnosis and during the treatment; the second
section relates methods and tools may be recommended,
being evidence-based, to support smoking cessation in
oncology settings.
Searches were conducted through MEDLINE,
EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and Google
Scholar. e following keywords or combinations were
used: cigarettes smoking, cancer, oncology patient,
oncology setting, smoking cessation, antismoking treat-
ment, nicotine dependence, nicotine replace treatment,
varenicline, bupropion, electronic cigarettes, smoking
cessation counseling.
In the first section, we considered papers from 1990 to
May 2016, using previous systematic reviews, national
and international reports, and empirical studies. While
in the second section, we included only controlled trials
studies from 1990 to May 2016.
Articles in languages other than English and letters
and editorials were excluded. e initial search identi-
fied 763 articles. An initial review of the titles abstracts
of these articles by 2 of the authors identified 133 articles
that were potentially relevant to the current review. e
abstracts of these articles were then evaluated against the
inclusion criteria by the authors, resulting in 35 articles
being identified as eligible for inclusion, with an addi-
tional 6 articles identified during manuscript preparation,
for a total of 41 articles. is review provides a narrative
synthesis of the findings from previous key reviews and
empirical studies identified in the literature search.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria section1:
We included article assessing the behavioral, psychologi-
cal and cognitive characteristic of adult smokers after a
diagnosis of cancer, including nicotine dependence level
and motivation to quit. We also reviewed paper (review
or empirical studies) that evaluated the rate of patients
that continue smoking after a cancer diagnosis. We
excluded editorial, opinion papers, letters and articles
related to adult smokers after childhood cancer.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for section2:
We included prospective controlled studies about adults
patients after a diagnosis of cancer during their clinical
treatment, measuring the effectiveness of a smoking ces-
sation treatment on smokers who received a diagnosis of
cancer and describing the smoking cessation methods
used, including the type of provider and the clinical set-
ting. We considered studies that specify the cancer sites
of patients and stage. We excluded studies on mixed pop-
ulation (cancer patients and other diseases), cohort stud-
ies as well as surveys.
Cognitive prole ofthe cancer patient who smokes
Westmaas et al. (2015), in a large prospective study
on a US cohort (including more than 12,000 smokers)
showed that a cancer diagnosis is associated with sig-
nificantly higher rates of quitting smoking within both 2
and 4years of the diagnosis. Almost one in three smokers
who received a cancer diagnosis in their study had quit
smoking within 2years, compared with fewer than one in
five smokers who had never received a cancer diagnosis.
Moreover, the greater quitting rate among cancer-diag-
nosed smokers is maintained at 4years. Interestingly, also
non-smoking related diagnosis affected patients’ smoking
habits. However, even though a diagnosis of cancer seem
to be a true teachable moment, not all patients actually
change their behavior. In particular, patients with preex-
isting chronic conditions that are linked to smoking (e.g.
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) have low rates of
quitting after cancer diagnosis. Coherently, Burris etal.
(2015) aggregating data across 131 studies on head and
neck cancer patients, found that about 50% of smokers
patients continue smoking after diagnosis, while previous
studies reported a range of 35–72% (Ostroff etal. 2013).
ese data may help in describing the typical cancer
patient who continue smoking after the diagnosis. Duffy
et al. (2012) describe this patient as a heavy smoker
(with a mean consumption of 28 cigarettes per day for
35–40years) with a high level of nicotine addiction with
a history of failed quitting attempts and some smoking-
related pathological condition. Even when these patients
Page 4 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
decide to attempt to stop smoking, the success rate is
generally low. For instance, Walker etal. (2006) showed
that lung cancer patients start smoking again only
2months after the surgery, supporting the idea that this
population is particularly challenging for smoking cessa-
tion specialists (Park etal. 2011).
Since, heavy smoking (smoking more than 20 cigarettes
a day, even though different definitions are present in lit-
erature; Husten 2009) and smoking related diseases are
particularly associated with lung and oral cavity cancer
(Gandini etal. 2008), we may expect to find more patients
who continue smoking after diagnosis in these pathologi-
cal conditions. Actually, several studies of non–small-cell
lung cancer patients have shown that many patients con-
tinue smoking (Gritz 1991; Dresler etal. 1996; Sanderson-
Cox etal. 2002) with estimates ranging from 13 to 70%.
In particular, Walker et al. (2004) in a retrospective
study of 49 lung cancer patients reported that patients
who were younger and less educated were more likely to
return to smoking after surgery. ey also found a cor-
relation of relapse with depression and social support.
Authors suggested that patients stop smoking imme-
diately before and after surgery, but relapse to smoking
remains a problem.
Cooley et al. (2009) in a study on a sample of 94
patients with early stage non-small cells lung cancer
reported similar results, but they also found a correlation
between smoking and pain. Authors collected data at 1, 2
and 4months after surgery and their results suggest that
the presence of pain is significantly correlated with smok-
ing after surgery.
Schnoll et al. (2005) among 109 lung and head and
neck cancer patients, showed that continued smoking
after 3months post-surgery is associated to low quitting
motivation and smoking-related beliefs that increase the
perception of disadvantages of quitting. In fact, in their
study authors found that patients who continue smoking
believe that cons of quitting are more than pros. False or
biased smoking-related beliefs are frequently present in
smokers. Different studies reported that smokers usually
show some kind of belief bias, ranging between 20 and
80% (Masiero etal. 2015). is is also true in oncology
settings. Such biased thoughts and beliefs may be exem-
plified by patients developing the idea that the cancer
does not relate to individual choices and behavior but
only to uncontrollable factors such as genetic predisposi-
tion, environmental pollution, etc. (Arnett 2000).
In particular, smokers tend to underestimate smoking-
related risks (Borrelli etal. 2010). For instance, a study of
Bock etal. (2001), reported that 47.6% of smokers admit-
ted to the emergency department for acute respiratory
care did not believe that they had a condition that was
caused or made worse by smoking.
Furthermore, smokers compared with non-smokers
tend to underestimate risks concerning themselves, but
they often change their judgment when thinking about
others’ risks. is attitude is defined optimistic bias
(Weinstein etal. 2005; Weinstein 1989). It drives people
to believe that they are protected from the consequences
of potential sources of risk and reinforces cigarette smok-
ing. However, some authors (e.g. Milbury et al. 2012;
Gritz etal. 2005) have suggested that giving up smoking
may be facilitated if patients become aware of the possi-
bility of changing their behavior and in so doing reduce
further risks.
Cancer-related emotional distress may favor smoking
as well. Indeed, depression is often present in patients,
ranging between 3 and 31% (Krebber etal. 2014). Also
blame contribute to exacerbating patients’ psychologi-
cal distress. Paradoxically, this reaction seems to initiate
a vicious circle, which reduces the motivation to start an
antismoking program (e.g. Chapple etal. 2004). A study
by Shin etal. (2014) on 45 patients and 173 family mem-
bers who continued to smoke for at least 1 month after
the diagnoses reported interesting data about the emo-
tional experience of patients and their relatives. In this
study, most smoker patients report to experience guilt
toward their family (75.6%) and to conceal their smok-
ing behavior. Similarly, relatives who continue smoking
feel guilt toward patients (63.6%). Hence, both relatives
and patients experience negative emotions and try to
prevent conflicts hiding their behavior also to the health
Long-term abstinence can be hindered by a negative
mood, since a correlation between cigarette smoking
and depression is well established (McClave etal. 2009).
Depressed smokers or smokers with a previous history
of major depression generally have a high level of nico-
tine dependence and a low probability of a successfully
attempt to stop smoking.
In oncology settings, depression is a critical issue for
patient management. Indeed, cancer patients can expe-
rience high levels of worries, fears, anxiety and nega-
tive emotions related to the disease and its treatment
(surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, periodic clini-
cal meetings, long periods of hospitalization, tests and
examinations). Patients may then use cigarette smoking
as a coping strategy. Furthermore, the pharmacologi-
cal properties of nicotine, with its cognitive-enhancing
effects, reinforces the perceived valued of cigarettes since
they may be used to alleviate treatment-related negative
effects on memory and attention.
Spek etal. (2013) found that the decrease of self-effi-
cacy tends to negatively affect smokers’ confidence in
their ability to quit smoking. Actually, patients with
a high degree of confidence in their power to give up
Page 5 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
smoking have a higher success rate than smokers with
a low confidence. Also, they report less relapses after
an attempt to quit (McBride and Ostroff 2003; Elfeddali
etal. 2012).
Other context-related variables influence smoking ces-
sation, such as living or working with people who habitu-
ally smoke. Indeed, patients who live with smokers are
more likely to maintain their habit than are patients who
live with non-smokers or in a smoke-free home. Fur-
thermore, social and family support (relatives, friends,
colleagues and so on) can be an important factor in pro-
moting smoking cessation even though different stud-
ies have shown divergent results (Park etal. 2004). May
and West (2000) in a review of the literature found that
social support may be beneficial in helping smokers quit-
ting, even if more research is needed to clarify the role
of relatives, especially in cancer survivors. However,
Schnoll etal. (2002) in a study of 74 patients found that a
low readiness to quit smoking after a cancer was strongly
associated with the fact of having a relative at home who
smoke. After hospitalization, when the patient goes back
home, smoking-related cues (e.g. a habitual smoking
place; smoking-related daily routine; other people who
smoke; sensorial stimuli and the like) may influence their
ability to remain abstinent.
is fact has been considered as a serious barrier in
helping patients to stop smoking. Indeed, daily exposure
to smoking-related stimuli may produce physiological
and cognitive changes that favor urgency and craving
due to a so-called attentional bias. is cognitive bias
is related to the selective properties of the attention. It
concerns the attitude of smokers and former smokers to
orient their attention to tobacco cigarette smoking cues
(Field etal. 2009) favoring the need to smoke. Finally, Ark
etal. (1997) found that in head and neck cancer patients
heavy alcohol use is a negative predictor of smoking
Smoking cessation interventions forcancer patients: state
ofthe art
Smoking interventions may be classified into two main
approaches: smoking cessation aids (SCAs) and cogni-
tive behavioral interventions (CBIs). Both methods are
used to approach cigarette addiction in healthy adults
and in cancer patients and they can be used alone or in
combination. However, most research on smoking cessa-
tion has been carried out on healthy people, while there
are only a few studies available on cancer patients and on
survivors (Duffy etal. 2012; see Table2).
Smoking cessation aids: SCAs
Smoking cessation aids involve three categories of ant-
ismoking strategies: nicotine replacement treatments
(NRTs), tobacco free cigarettes—(TFC) and medications
(mainly bupropion and varenicline).
Nicotine replacement treatment is very popular among
smokers. Generally, a first spontaneous attempt to give
up involves NRT (where available without a medical pre-
scription). ey provide nicotine, stabilizing its level in
the blood in order to avoid a withdrawal syndrome after
having stopped smoking. ey are available in different
forms including transdermal nicotine replacement prod-
ucts, patch, gum, lozenge, inhaler, spray and sublingual
tablets. Commonly, the treatment lasts for 10–12weeks,
but it is often prolonged to 6months. e type of NRTs
chosen depends on personal preference, but clinical con-
siderations should be issued too.
Two NRT groups, depending on the administration
method, are usually described. e first group includes
NRTs that require daily administration, generally based
on the use of patches. e second group include proto-
cols based on multiple administrations a day, so-called
short-acting NRT (Nides 2008).
e main aims of NRT are three: craving reduction,
withdrawal control and abstinence promotion (Stead
et al. 2008). A growing body of scientific literature
stresses that NRT helps patients to give up smoking
(Fiore etal. 2000). Pharmacological trials in particular
have shown that the combination of multiple forms of
NRT improves the interruption success rate (Ferguson
etal. 2011) also in medical settings (Hurt etal. 2009).
Also, NRTs have few side effects, being the most preva-
lent a transient nausea (Fiore etal. 2008). eir prin-
cipal weak point is the low compliance, since after a
short period many people interrupt the smoking cessa-
tion program, believing that they are able to control the
situation without further help (Balmford etal. 2011).
NRT may be successfully used with cancer patients,
generally in association with some form of counseling
and/or other pharmacological treatment (see Table2).
For instance, a retrospective study by Garces et al.
(2004) showed that a combination of NRT and other
behavioral and pharmacological treatment is as effec-
tive in head and neck cancer patients as in the general
A particular type of NRT involves tobacco-free ciga-
rettes (TFCs) also called e-cigarettes. ese devices have
rapidly become widespread over the last 5years, and are
often used by smokers to reduce the daily number of cig-
arettes, or to smoke in places where tobacco cigarettes
are not allowed.
A TFC device is composed of a battery-powered device
that produces a vapour for inhalation. e steam contains
humectants, flavours, and pure nicotine. Liquids used in
e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco and do not require
combustion. ey may or may not contain nicotine.
Page 6 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
Table 2 Clinical trials onsmoking cessation from2000 to2014
Year Authors Design study Aim Sample Smoking cessation
intervention Follow-up Disease Outcome
1993 Gritz et al. Randomized controlled
study Assessing a provider-deliv-
ered smoking cessation
counseling program in
cancer patients
186 Group 1: usual care
including informa-
tion on the risks of
continued smoking and
benefits of cessation
and physician advice
to quit
Group 2: usual care advice
plus discussion of the
person’s readiness to
quit, provision of infor-
mational booklets, and
the physician’s expres-
sions of confidence in
the patient’s ability to
quit (plus booster ses-
sions during six monthly
12 months Head and neck
cancers 60 % patients was absti-
nent (confirmed by
cotinine) and among
the remaining smokers,
consumption dropped
by 50 % (12/cigarettes/
day). No differences
between groups.
39 % of the sample
was not assessed at
12 month due to health
conditions, death and
1994 Stanislaw, Wewers Randomized controlled
study To examine the effect of
a structured smoking
cessation intervention
during hospitalization
on short-term smok-
ing abstinence
26 Structured counseling
smoking cessation
treatment during hos-
pitalization followed
by five weekly phone
calls after discharge
6 weeks (first post discharge
visit) Mix cancer sites abstinence rates con-
firmed by cotinine were
75 % for the interven-
tion and 40 % for usual
1998 Griebel, Wewers, Baker Prospective, two-group,
randomized clinical
Assessing the effective-
ness of a nurse-
managed minimal
intervention among
hospitalized patients
with cancer
28 During hospitaliza-
tion, subjects were
assigned to a minimal
counseling smoking-
cessation intervention
group (n = 14) or to
usual care treatment
(n = 14)
6 weeks post intervention Mix cancer sites 21 % and 14 % of the
intervention and usual
care group, respectively,
were abstinent at
6 weeks
Page 7 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
Table 2 continued
Year Authors Design study Aim Sample Smoking cessation
intervention Follow-up Disease Outcome
2003 Schnoll et al. Randomized controlled
trial Assessing physician-
based smoking inter-
vention comparing to
usual care
432 Control Group (N = 218)
Usual care: minimal
advice. Intervention
Group (N = 217)
Intervention: quit-
ting advice; nicotine
replacement therapy;
self-help smoking
cessation guide;
telephone number for
additional assistance
and/or referral to a
cessation program;
assessed cessation
progress during sub-
sequent medical visits
6 months–12 months Breast, prostate, or
testicular cancer
or lymphoma
No association found
between physician-
based smoking inter-
vention and long-term
(6 months follow up
and 12 months follow
up) quit rates
2004 Wakefield et al. Randomized controlled
trial Evaluating whether
motivational inter-
viewing intervention
increases quit rates
137 Control Group (N = 63):
minimal advice.
Intervention Group
(N = 74): motivational
interviewing interven-
tion (over at 3-months
period); nicotine
replacement therapy
(in patients who
smoked more than
15 cigarettes per day),
family advice to quit,
and an in-person or
telephone follow-up
conversation. Follow-
up at 6-months
6 months Mixed cancer sites No evidence to support
efficacy of the moti-
vational interviewing
2005 Croghan et al. Method no stated Assessing individual
counseling interven-
tion comparing to
physician advice alone
30 Control Group (N = 11):
minimal advice.
Intervention Group
(N = 19): individual
counseling inter-
vention (1 session
for 45 min) plus
individualized nicotine
No information available Lung or Esopha-
geal cancer No evidence to sup-
port efficacy of the
individual counseling
Page 8 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
Table 2 continued
Year Authors Design study Aim Sample Smoking cessation
intervention Follow-up Disease Outcome
2005 Schnoll et al. Randomized controlled
trial Assessing cognitive-
behavioral therapy
plus Nicotine Replace-
mentTherapy (CBT)
comparing to General
Health Education
109 No indication about
dimension of control
and experimental
group. Control group:
minimal advice plus
transdermal nicotine
patches (8 weeks).
Intervention group:
individual counseling
intervention (4
counseling sessions,
1 in-person and 3
over the phone) plus
transdermal nicotine
patches (8 weeks)
1 month–3 months Headand neck,
lung cancer No evidence to support
efficacy of the tailored
CBT intervention both
at 1 month and at
3 months follow-up
2010 Thomsen et al. Randomized
controlled multicentre
Primary aim: Evaluating
the impact of brief
smoking cessation
interventions on post-
surgery complica-
tions. Secondary aim:
Assessing the efficacy
of brief smoking cessa-
tion interventions on
quit rates
130 Control group (N = 65):
minimal advice.
Experimental group
(N = 65): brief smok-
ing intervention (moti-
vational interviewing
plus personalized
nicotine replacement
No information available Breast cancer Primary outcome: No
observed clinical
impact on postopera-
tive complications. Sec-
ondary outcome: Brief
smoking intervention
administered shortly
before breast cancer
surgery modestly
increased preoperative
smoking cessation
2010 Schnoll et al. Double-blind placebo-
controlled trial
Assessing the efficacy of
bupropion for treating
tobacco depend-
ence among cancer
246 Control group
(N = 132): coun-
seling (5 sessions),
transdermal nicotine
patches (8 weeks) plus
placebo (9 weeks).
Experimental group
(N = 114): coun-
seling (5 sessions),
transdermal nicotine
patches (8 weeks) plus
Bupropion (9 weeks)
3 months–6 months Mixed cancer sites Bupropion has a low
impact on quitting
rate on patients with
depression symptoms,
but not in cancer
patients without
depression symptoms.
Bupropion is safe for
cancer patients who
smoke (in terms of
side effects) and may
increase QOL for
patients with depres-
sion symptoms
Page 9 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
Table 2 continued
Year Authors Design study Aim Sample Smoking cessation
intervention Follow-up Disease Outcome
2011 Park et al. Pilot study Assessing the efficacy of
a smoking inter-
ventions based on
behavioral counseling
plus varenicline
49 Control group (N = 17):
no information avail-
able. Experimental
group (N = 32):
varenicline (12 weeks)
plus counseling (9
2 weeks–2 months Thoracic cancer Varenicline plus coun-
seling increased quit-
ting rate
2012 de Bruin-Visser et al. Method not stated Examining the efficacy
of nursing-delivered
smoking cessation
145 Nursing-delivered
smoking cessation
program (counseling
plus nicotine replace-
ment therapy)
6 months–12 months Head-and-neck;
Lung; Breast;
Sarcoma; Bladder
Counseling plus nicotine
replacement therapy
seem to improve
smoking cessation rate
both 6 months and
12 months
2013 Bastian et al. Randomized
controlled trial Assessing the efficacy of
proactive telephone
counseling combined
with a tailored self-
directed intervention
comparing to tailored
self-directed interven-
tion alone
596 Control group
(N = 251): transdermal
nicotine patches.
Experimental group
(N = 245): proactive
telephone counseling
plus transdermal
nicotine patches
2 weeks–6 months–
12 months Lung cancer No difference
2013 Hawari et al. Prospective
observational study Evaluating the absti-
nence rates in cancer
patients that they
underwent to smok-
ing cessation program
210 Tobacco Intervention:
medical counselling,
pharmacologic man-
agement (varenicline
or bupropion), plus
3- 6 and 12- months lung, urinary blad-
der, head and
neck cancers
and myeloid
Abstinence rates declined
with time
3 months: relapse related
to withdrawal
6 months: relapse rated
to personal and profes-
sional stressful
12 months: relapse rated
to personal and profes-
sional stressful
2013 Ostroff et al. Randomized
controlled trial Assessing the efficacy of
short smoking inter-
vention pre-surgical
185 Control group: coun-
seling plus pharmaco-
therapy. Experimental
group: short smoking
intervention pre-sur-
gical plus counseling
and pharmacotherapy
3 months–6 months Mixed cancer sites Short smoking interven-
tion pre-surgical does
not increase quit rates
both in short term
(hospital admission and
3 months) and in long
term (6 months)
Page 10 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
Table 2 continued
Year Authors Design study Aim Sample Smoking cessation
intervention Follow-up Disease Outcome
2016 Price et al. Randomized
controlled trial Assessing the feasibil-
ity, safety, and effect
on cessation of
varenicline combined
with counseling for
smoking cessation in
patients with cancer
132 Group 1: 12 weeks of
varenicline followed
by 12 weeks of
Group 2: 24 weeks of
All Participants also
received behavioral
counseling consist-
ing of one 60-min
in-person pre-quit
counseling visit at
week 0 and further
in-person counseling
sessions at weeks 1, 4,
8, and 12
12 weeks Mixed cancer cites 40.1 % of patients
self-reported to be
abstinent at 12 weeks.
Abstinence correlated
with improvement in
cognitive functions
Page 11 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
TFCs containing nicotine can be considered a NRT,
albeit with specific and distinct characteristics. Firstly,
comparing TFCs with traditional NRTs, the former
deliver a modest amount of nicotine (Fagerström and Eis-
senberg 2012). Secondly, TFCs present a better usability
and they are more appealing for smokers since they can
be used when needed by a well-known modality, i.e. tak-
ing a cigarette-like device to the mouth and inhaling. In
doing so, smokers not only may react to an immediate
need or desire, but they can enact a gesture associated
with their previous status (cigarette smokers), thus elicit-
ing positive emotions and satisfying psychological expec-
tations. irdly, TFCs may be used adlibitum enabling
patients to feel free to control their behavior instead of
feeling an under external imposition. For these reasons,
it has been suggested that TFCs fit in very well with both
the psychological and physiological needs of smokers
who want and/or need to stop.
Some clinical trials revealed that e-cigarettes attenu-
ate the craving for cigarettes (Wagener etal. 2012; Bul-
len etal. 2013). Furthermore, a recent review of the field
showed that TFCs may be considered safe, with few
adverse events and limited toxicity (Farsalinos and Polosa
2014). In the general population, nicotine TFCs has been
showed to be more efficacious in reducing withdrawal
symptoms than nicotine-free TFCs (Etter and Bullen
2011). However, also the latter may be considered valid
options in oncology settings when supported by coun-
selling, as shown by ongoing studies (Cipolla 2012; Luc-
chiari etal. 2016). e use of nicotine-free TFCs allow
drug-free smoking cessation treatments, and this fact
could be particularly interesting for patients undergo-
ing aggressive therapies or at high risk for cardiovas-
cular events. ough some others studies did not find
and effect of the use of TFCs in a population of cancer
patients (e.g. Borderud et al. 2014; Barton 2015), we
argue that only long run longitudinal studies on targeted
population and using randomized design will clarify the
role of TFCs devices to help patients to quit smoking.
At the time of publishing, there is a clear gap in the
knowledge about the feasibility, efficacy and safety of
TFCs in oncology settings. In consideration of the lack
of evidence, it is not possible to recommend a systematic
use of TFCs with cancer patients (Cummings etal. 2014).
However, a number of studies are now open on over the
world. At our institution, two trials are currently ongoing
to analyse how TFCs with and without nicotine might be
included in clinical protocols both during cancer treat-
ments and in early diagnosis screening programs.
Lastly, the pharmacological approach to smoking cessa-
tion is mainly based on two medications: bupropion and
varenicline, both of which are extensively used in clini-
cal practice. Bupropion is an atypical antidepressant that
promotes cessation probably by reducing the stimulating
effect of neurotransmitters, being an inhibitor of dopa-
mine and norepinephrine reuptake. It counteracts crav-
ing and smoke-related withdrawal symptoms (Jorenby
et al. 2006). In addition, it counters emotional distress
during abstinence, which is a very important character-
istic to consider for cancer patients. Indeed, as noted
above, cancer patients frequently experience high levels
of depression, and smoking interruption can drastically
increase this because of psychological and physiological
cigarette dependence.
Bupropion has been administered to cancer patients
during treatment, and it was found to improve their
mood, facilitating the smoking cessation success. In par-
ticular, Schnoll et al. (2010) designed a double-blind,
placebo-controlled trial ran on a sample of 246 cancer
patients (mix cancer sites). In the first arm of the study,
patients received 5 counseling session, 8weeks of NRT
and 9weeks of bupropion. In the second arm, patients
received the same treatment of group 1, but bupropion
was substituted by a placebo. While NRT and counseling
was found to be effective in non-depressed patients,
bupropion showed to be beneficial for those patient who
reported depressive symptoms. Benefits were found both
for mood and for smoking cessation rate.
Bupropion has other relevant properties, e.g. it reduces
post-cessation weight gain (Martinez etal. 2009), and it
can be used even with patients with cardiovascular prob-
lems. However, the use of bupropion should be avoided
for patients receiving active treatments for brain or other
central nervous system cancers, and for those patients
with a history of seizures, bulimia or anorexia nervosa.
Furthermore, the use of this agent must be carefully
weighed when dealing those patients receiving chemo-
therapy with direct CNS effects due to the increased
potential for seizure. More research in the safety of
bupropion during cancer therapy is warranted, even
though no further contraindications are suggested (Klo-
sky etal. 2007).
A further pharmacological treatment for smoking
dependence involves the use of varenicline. is is a
partial agonist of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor sub-
type α4β2, reducing dopamine stimulation. A study by
Gonzales etal. (2006) reported that a 12-weeks vareni-
cline-based treatment counters craving, urgency and
withdrawal symptoms in healthy smokers. If properly
administered, varenicline causes cigarettes to lose their
habitual pleasure, favouring the extinction of the smok-
ing habit (Baraldo etal. 2012; Ebbert etal. 2010). is is
particularly true for smokers with a low motivation to
give up and/or with important nicotine withdrawal symp-
toms (Nides 2008). In the general population, varenicline
is considered the best option to increase the probability
Page 12 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
of success of a smoking cessation program, reaching a
25–30% of abstinences within the first year (Issa etal.
2013; Mills etal. 2012). However, a study by Hawari etal.
on a heterogeneous sample (n=199) of cancer patients
(mix cancer sites) failed to find any significant advan-
tage by the use of varenecline in association with NRT at
3months with respect to NRT alone.
Nausea, abnormal dreams, upper respiratory tract
infection and insomnia are the most commonly reported
adverse events, and these are generally mild and self-lim-
iting. Although it has been associated with depression,
suicidal behaviour and myocardial infarction (depres-
sion is actually a relative contra-indication; Brophy 2011),
a recent meta-analysis showed that there is no clear
evidence that these side-effects are causally related to
the drug use (Prochaska and Hilton 2012). Varenicline
should be avoided with pregnant, nursing, in patients
with renal impairment or patients younger than 18, but
generally appears safe in treating tobacco dependence
of patients with cancer. Furthermore, the use of vareni-
cline seem to support cognitive functions (Clinical Prac-
tice Guidelines in Oncology: Smoking Cessation 2015).
In particular, a recent study by Price etal. (2016) on a
sample of 132 smokers with a diagnosis of cancer found
that varenicline was well tolerated by patients. ey
designed a two arms randomized study. Patients received
or 12weeks of varenicline followed by 12weeks of pla-
cebo or a full 24weeks of varenicline. However, at the
moment of publication only data about the first 12weeks
of varenicline are available. e pharmacological treat-
ment was combined with five standardized brief smoking
cessation counselling sessions. About 40.1% of smokers
stopped after 12 weeks of treatment, a datum compa-
rable with results found in the general population. Side
effects symptoms were present (in particular, nausea and
sleep problems) but they did not prevent patients to com-
plete the treatment. Furthermore, abstainers at 12week
showed a significant decrease in cognitive deficits. e
authors did not report data about longer-term assess-
ment points and the placebo condition. Furthermore, the
cancer stage is very heterogeneous (in the 33.3% is not
specified) and many patients (25.8 %) are in remission.
Under this condition is difficult to evaluate the real ability
of patient to tolerate the treatment side effects.
e use of vareniclin in oncological setting require
more research in order to establish in which context it
should be beneficial.
Cognitive behavioral interventions (CBIs)
Cognitive behavioral interventions (CBIs) are based on a
psychological approach to smoking aimed at supporting
people in changing their behavior by a cognitive restruc-
turing. Low-intensity or high-intensity interventions may
be used. e low-intensity interventions are more fre-
quently used in oncology settings, in screening programs
as well as in other clinical settings. ey are character-
ized by self-help tools and the use of so-called minimal
advice. Normally, the self-help tools are booklets, bro-
chures, and informative paper-based support materials,
although video clips and computer-based tools are also
now available. ese tools convey general information
about the consequences of smoking and the benefits of
giving up.
e main advantage of self-help tools is that they target
a large population; unfortunately, their effects are gener-
ally poor (Lancaster and Stead 2005).
e minimal advice is a short list of recommenda-
tions, requiring just some minutes, focused on why it
is important to consider to stop smoking and how (and
where) it is possible to address the issue, e.g. starting an
antismoking program. is approach is particularly use-
ful in a clinical setting, where trust between patients and
physicians is already established and where external but
affordable resources are available (e.g. an antismoking
When meeting a patient, oncologists and/or nurses
may merely explain the importance of interruption of
smoking in cancer care and the impact on treatment,
but they do not directly suggest strategies or therapies
(Emmons etal. 2013).
e minimal advice consists of the evaluation of the
personal smoking history and a few suggestions. Sev-
eral studies reported a delay of specific interventions for
patients who smoke after the diagnosis, probably due to
a “beating the disease” priority. e urgency of the dis-
ease focuses the doctor’s attention on the assessment and
the cure of clinical conditions, while other aspects may
go untreated.
e high intensity interventions involves a counseling
approach. Behavioral counseling has been defined as a
relationship between an expert and a client, focused on
behavior to be changed. Normally, each session lasts
A broadly used tool is the motivational interview aimed
to understand the subjects position within the so-called
cognitive spiral of change (Prochaska and DiClemente
1983), and to activate motivational drivers. Previous
research has stressed that a high motivational level can
facilitate smoking cessation and abstinence, while a low
motivational level negatively affects the success rate. e
motivational level is considered as a benchmark to decide
which strategy to opt for.
Behavioral counseling can be used in oncology settings
and continued during the follow-up scheduling. Gener-
ally speaking, behavioral counseling starts during the
hospitalization and should be continued after discharge.
Page 13 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
It has been shown that it increases the giving-up rate
after 6 and 12months (Rigotti etal. 2008) in hospital-
ized patiens. Another widespread model, very useful in
hospital settings, is telephone counseling. Habitually, it
is used in combination with traditional (on-site) coun-
seling (Stead etal. 2006). is intervention can be proac-
tive or reactive (Lichtenstein etal. 1996). e proactive
approach targets patients already prompted to give up,
and then may be used to monitor the ongoing situation
over time. Instead, the reactive approach is based on spe-
cific needs of patients (Stead et al. 2008). A review on
telephone counselling has stressed that it sustains absti-
nence in the long run (Tzelepis etal. 2011). e smok-
ing cessation counseling should be accompanied by a set
of recommendations regarding the need of a general-
ized lifestyle change (Anderson etal. 2002). is aspect
of counseling could be very important in oncology set-
ting, since physical activity may have a positive impact on
quality of life and wellbeing (Gill etal. 2013), thus poten-
tially acting as the trigger of a virtuous circle. Health
personnel could use their privileged role to encourage
changes in this direction and redirect patients to exter-
nal services after discharge. Generally, speaking coun-
seling may be considered effective in supporting smoking
attempts in oncology settings in association with smok-
ing cessation aids (Klemp etal. 2016). For instance, Park
etal. (2011) studied the effect of antismoking counselling
in association with a pharmacological tobacco treatment
(Varenicline) in a sample of 49 cancer patients with a
thoracic cancer, showing the positive impact of this com-
bined treatment. In this study, the intervention consisted
in a 12-week program (Varenicline and counseling).
Patients in the treatment group received a median of 9
counseling sessions structured according the 5 As brief
counseling model (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, Arrange
follow up). Authors report that the prevalence abstinence
rate at 12week follow-up was 40.6 in the intervention
group and 14.3 in the control group.
Similar results were obtained by de Bruin-Visser etal.
(2012) using a 1-year minimal intervention counseling
program delivered by nurses (one visit a week in the first
month and one every other month with the endpoint at
12months). Authors included in their study 145 patients
with mix cancer sites and found a positive effect of the
counseling, since at 6months the 40 % of patients had
stopped smoking, and 33% was abstinent at 12months.
During this period, most patients also use some kind of
nicotine substitutes (83%), but authors report no associ-
ation between abstinence and the use of nicotine replace-
ment products. However, Bastian etal. (2013) failed to
find any positive relationships between a telephone-
based counseling program and smoking cessation in a
large sample of 596 lung cancer patients. In particular,
authors compared an at-distance counseling program
(6 calls) based on motivational interviewing techniques
with tailored self-directed materials (n = 245) and a
minimal intervention based only on tailored self-directed
materials (n  = 251). In both groups nicotine patches
was al used if not contraindicated. eir results showed
no differences between the two groups, even though in
younger patients (<50) the abstinence rate was higher
(16 vs. 4%) at 2weeks post-surgery. is study underline
once more that lung cancer patients need intensive inter-
ventions to stop smoking.
Other studies have tested the efficacy of a strategy
based on a brief physician intervention, showing that
low intensity intervention have poor power in helping
patients quitting attempts. In particular, Schnoll et al.
(2003) compared two large groups of patients (mix can-
cer sites). e intervention group (n = 217) received
a minimal advise and information about the benefits of
quitting and smoking cessation treatment. Furthermore,
patients in this group received a self-help smoking ces-
sation guide a telephone line for additional assistance or
information. e control group (n=218) received only
a minimal advise about smoking by their physician. At
6months, 14.4% patients in group 1 and 11.9% in group
2 had stopped smoking, showing no significant differ-
ences between the two arms of the study.
ough the studies we have considered did not directly
analyzed the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation
treatment in oncology settings, de Bruin-Visser et al.
(2012) suggest to estimate cost-effective analysis for can-
cer patients using by studies in the general population. In
particular, Song etal. (2002) found that NRT for smok-
ing cessation is cost-effective. e results of the deci-
sion analyses indicated that, as compared with advice
or counseling alone, the incremental cost per life-years
saved is about $1441–$3455 for NRT, $920–$2150 for
bupropion, and $1282–$2836 for NRT plus bupropion.
e cost-effectiveness of adding NRT and bupropion to
advice or counseling for smoking cessation is better than
many other accepted health care interventions. Hoogen-
doorn et al. (2010) analyzed the long-term cost-effec-
tiveness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary.
ey reported that pharmacological treatments in com-
bination with intensive counselling was cost saving com-
pared with intensive counselling alone, and that the latter
in turn was more effective than minimal intervention.
Finally, Meenan etal. (1998) analyzed the cost-effective-
ness of a hospital-based smoking cessation intervention
reporting that the cost of the research intervention was
$159 per smoker, and incremental cost per incremental
quit was $3697. Incremental cost per incremental dis-
counted life-year saved ranged between $1691 and $7444,
much less than most other routine medical procedures.
Page 14 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
A cancer diagnosis may represent a fundamental teach-
able moment for smokers, leading them to give up
smoking or to significantly reduce daily cigarettes. Most
former smokers declare that they decided to quit due to
physical issues or the fear of future health consequences
of smoking (Gallus et al. 2013). Furthermore, a regres-
sion analysis on 15,489 smokers participating in lung
cancer screening studies reviled that smoking cessation
is strongly associated with screening abnormalities and
that efficacious smoking cessation programs should be
integrated within screenings (Tammemägi etal. 2014).
Despite this evidence, few studies have directly addressed
the problem of how to help a patient with cancer to aban-
don unhealthy habits. Additionally, even though some
recommendations exist, no specific and validated pro-
tocols are recognized as a valid and shared antismoking
approach in oncology settings. As a consequence of this
attitude a cancer patient is rarely concretely and system-
atically supported in a smoking cessation journey (e.g.
Nayan etal. 2011; de Bruin-Visser etal. 2012), with the
result that though many patients developed a good moti-
vation to stop, few actually remain abstinent in a long
run. us, the emotional trigger of the diagnosis and the
motivational context of the clinical setting succeed only
in helping patients to suspend cigarette smoking for a
short period (e.g. Land etal. 2011) but not as a sound
lifestyle change.
From a psychosocial point of view, the fact that motiva-
tion to stop level regresses to its pre-diagnostic level is an
expected phenomenon (Slovic etal. 2004). Indeed, emo-
tions have a time-limited effect and their impact on deci-
sion-making processes (e.g. whether to attempt quitting
or not) rapidly fades after an emotional burden. Emotions
must be considered as short-time cognitive modulators,
being able to focus attention on risk-related behaviors
and the need to avoid them in a specific spatial and tem-
poral context (Pravettoni etal. 2012). Consequently, time
matters, since the more time pass between diagnosis and
treatments the more the motivation to quit decreases.
Furthermore, in order to help oncology patients to
reduce smoking-related risks, it is vital to know the gen-
eral characteristics of the context in which the emotions
arose. If a patient learns in a specific, clinical setting (a
surgery and/or oncology department) that smoking is
dangerous and that quitting could be a good solution
for their future health, this setting will be associated
with that emotionally-laden knowledge. Consequently,
patients will develop a situated learning that will moti-
vate their choices. However, when a patient goes back
home the context will dramatically change, activating
previous learning and habits, e.g. smoking while watch-
ing TV or after dinner. Here the motivation to quit will
rapidly vanish if not adequately supported by prior inter-
ventions and adequately sustained by a continuous help, a telephone counseling. Actually, in a study on 721
lung cancer survivors, smoking cessation success was
found to be negatively associated with smoking exposure
at home (Eng etal. 2014).
Consequently, we argue that in order to help patients
to give up smoking, the health personnel working in
oncology settings should be prepared to offer a com-
plete program aimed at promoting health by integrating
new perspectives and attitudes in patients’ values sys-
tem. Cancer centers should promote smoking cessation
applying guidelines and doing more research on smokers’
needs in order to implement tailored and effective inter-
ventions (Mazza etal. 2010; Cataldo etal. 2010).
In particular, even if it is very important to consider
the cancer treatment a teachable moment to help a con-
crete lifestyle change, we claim that emotions should not
be used as levers to force their change, but only as initial
triggers. Indeed a social-cognitive approach to patients
suggests that physicians and nurses should use their posi-
tion within the clinical setting to drive patients through
a sound learning process, instead of causing just a time-
limited suspension of a dysfunctional behavior. In par-
ticular, a cognitive perspective should be used in order to
understand which personal beliefs sustain the smoking
behavior, since biased evaluations could prevent patients
success in their attempts to quit (Masiero et al. 2015;
Pepper et al. 2014). However, to achieve this aim the
hospital personnel should be educated by specific train-
ing and motivated to adopt the best practices by hospital
Overcoming the limits of the classical minimal advice
approach, which could be just the initial part of a more com-
plex process, the social-cognitive intervention should be:
Integrated the smoking cessation treatment should
be experienced as an integral part of the cancer man-
agement. In particular, nurses could serve this aim by
introducing the issues of smoking and smoking cessa-
tion and by evaluating the tobacco dependence and the
motivation to stop so to address patients to dedicated
Personalized the therapeutic options provided to
patients should be compatible with their values, needs
and attitudes. Furthermore, it should address a whole
lifestyle change.
Proactive offering patients continuity in treatments,
avoiding offering merely on-demand support or sugges-
Reactive providing patients dedicated treatments or
support when needed, independently of any therapeutic
Page 15 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
is approach requires a multidisciplinary effort since
physicians, nurses and behavior change specialist should
work together each having specific roles (Lucchiari etal.
2013). In particular, physicians should introduce the issue
of smoking within the general treatment, using the ther-
apeutic alliance to gain the attention of the patient and
guide the subsequent cognitive assessment of smoking-
related risks and benefits of quitting. Some studies (e.g.
Mazza et al. 2010) have reported the fear of physicians
to suggest antismoking programs due to the fragile emo-
tional situation of patients, and the potential to cause
distress responses. Nonetheless, an antismoking path-
way should not be experienced by patients as a further
stressor, and we suggest that health personnel could play
a vital role in helping patients to approach the problem in
a balanced fashion, to reduce stress and maximize bene-
fits. Since a number of studies on cancer patients demon-
strate moderate smoking cessation success following the
general principles of evidence-based smoking cessation
protocol (Gritz etal. 2014) a targeted and interdiscipli-
nary approach should be adopted using systematic moni-
toring of patients’ needs and behavior in order to sustain
long-term abstinence (Hawari et al. 2013). However,
when this is not possible, physicians and nurses should
act as valuable information carriers, addressing relevant
issues and encouraging patients to search for support in
external services.
Health personnel should provide detailed informa-
tion about smoking hazards (both before, during and
after cancer) and support patients’ motivation to start an
attempt to quit (Zwar etal. 2011). is support should
be based on a social-cognitive perspective, since any
information and/or advice provided should be aimed at
breaking down false beliefs and cognitive biases and at
reinforcing the emotional, physical and social benefits
of the change. Consequently, personnel should be well
trained in performing this task and they should be aware
of the important role they are playing in the whole pro-
cess. is mean that physicians and nurses are regarded
not only as information bearers, but also as change
facilitators, potentially making a great difference in the
result (Cooley et al. 2008). Finally, specialized counse-
lors should follow the entire clinical pathway by regular
meeting (potentially also at a distance, e.g. by telephone)
to provide emotional support, sustain motivation, and
approach specific concerns. is should also include
behavioral interventions (e.g. helping patients to manage
anxiety states, sleep disturbances and the like).
Physicians, nurses and specialists must therefore work
in an integrated fashion, able to exchange informa-
tion, keep track of the patients’ history and adequately
respond to patients’ demands throughout all the oncol-
ogy treatment. is also means that when patients need
help, e.g. in the use of antismoking medications or in
following specific procedures, they can easily find prac-
tical support, as some studies have shown that patients
often fail to continue the antismoking treatment due
to practical problems (e.g. McBride and Ostroff 2003).
Indeed, a whole and integrated approach will get patients
into a protection context, where emotional, behavioral
and practical issues are continually monitored and sup-
ported. However, the future success of tobacco smoking
programs in oncology settings will depend on the level of
knowledge education and motivation of health personnel.
Authors’ contributions
CL and MM searched for and collected the scientific literature to work under
the supervision of GP and, for the oncological and pharmaceutical studies,
AB. All papers were discussed and commented by all authors. The article text
was drafted by CL and MM and then amended by others. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Author details
1 Department of Philosophy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
2 Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, Università degli Studi di
Milano, Milan, Italy. 3 Applied Research Unit for Cognitive and Psychological
Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 4 Department of Neu-
rooncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico C. Besta, Milan, Italy.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 9 October 2015 Accepted: 8 July 2016
Anderson JE, Jorenby DE, Scott WJ, Fiore MC (2002) Treating tobacco use and
dependence an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for tobacco
cessation. CHEST J 121(3):932–941
Ark WV, DiNardo LJ, Oliver DS (1997) Factors affecting smoking cessation in
patients with head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope 107(7):888–892
Arnett JJ (2000) Optimistic bias in adolescent and adult smokers and non-
smokers. Addict Behav 25(4):625–632
Balmford J, Borland R, Hammond D, Cummings KM (2011) Adherence to and
reasons for premature discontinuation of stop-smoking medications:
data from the ITC Four-Country Survey. Nicotine Tob Res 13(2):94–102
Baraldo S, Turato G, Saetta M (2012) Pathophysiology of the small airways in
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respiration 84(2):89–97
Barton MK (2015) Electronic cigarettes did not help patients with cancer stop
smoking. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2):85–86
Bastian LA, Fish LJ, Peterson BL, Biddle AK, Garst J, Lyna P, McBride CM (2013)
Assessment of the impact of adjunctive proactive telephone coun-
seling to promote smoking cessation among lung cancer patients’
social networks. Am J Health Promot 27(3):181–190
Blalock JA, Lam C, Minnix JA, Karam-Hage M, Gritz ER, Robinson JD, Cinciripini
PM (2011) The effect of mood, anxiety, and alcohol use disorders on
smoking cessation in cancer patients. J Cogn Psychother 25(1):82–96
Bock BC, Becker B, Monteiro R, Partridge R, Fisher S, Spencer J (2001) Physician
intervention and patient risk perception among smokers with acute
respiratory illness in the emergency department. Prev Med 32:175–181
Borderud SP, Li Y, Burkhalter JE, Sheffer CE, Ostroff JS (2014) Electronic cigarette
use among patients with cancer: characteristics of electronic cigarette
users and their smoking cessation outcomes. Cancer 120:3527–3535.
Borrelli B, Hayes RB, Dunsiger S, Fava JL (2010) Risk perception and smok-
ing behavior in medically ill smokers: a prospective study. Addiction
Page 16 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
Brophy JM (2011) ACP journal club. Review: varenicline increases the risk of
serious adverse cardiovascular events in tobacco users. Ann Intern Med
Bullen C, Howe C, Laugesen M et al (2013) Electronic cigarettes for
smoking cessation: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet
Burris JL, Studts JL, DeRosa AP, Ostroff JS (2015) Systematic review of tobacco
use after lung or head/neck cancer diagnosis: results and recom-
mendations for future research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev
Cataldo JK, Dubey S, Prochaska JJ (2010) Smoking cessation: an integral part of
lung cancer treatment. Oncology 78(5–6):289–301
Champassak SL, Goggin K, Finocchario-Kessler S, Farris M, Ehtesham M, Schoor
R, Catley D (2014) A qualitative assessment of provider perspectives on
smoking cessation counseling. J Eval Clin Pract 20(3):281–287
Chang G, John Orav E, McNamara T, Tong MY, Antin JH (2004) Depression,
cigarette smoking, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation out-
come. Cancer 101(4):782–789
Chapple A, Ziebland S, McPherson A (2004) Stigma, shame, and blame
experienced by patients with lung cancer: a qualitative study. BMJ
(International Edition) 328(7454):1470–1473
Cipolla C (2012) Early smoking reduction or cessation by means of no nicotine
electronic cigarette added to standard, Identifier:
Cooley ME, Sipples RL, Murphy M, Sarna L (2008) Smoking cessation and lung
cancer: oncology nurses can make a difference. Semin Oncol Nurs
Cooley ME, Sarna L, Kotlerman J, Lukanich JM, Jaklitsch M, Green SB, Bueno
R (2009) Smoking cessation is challenging even for patients recov-
ering from lung cancer surgery with curative intent. Lung Cancer
Croghan G, Croghan I, Frost M, Sloan JA, Novotny PJ, Nelson MA (2005)
Smoking cessation interventions and post-operative outcomes in
esophageal and lung cancer patients. Society for research on nicotine
and tobacco 11th annual meeting, 20–23
Cropley M, Theadom A, Pravettoni G, Webb G (2008) The effectiveness of
smoking cessation interventions prior to surgery: a systematic review.
Nicotine Tob Res 10(3):407–412
Cummings KM, Dresler CM, Field JK, Fox J, Gritz ER, Hanna NH, Zhou C (2014)
E-cigarettes and cancer patients. J Thorac Oncol 9(4):438–441
Daniel M, Keefe FJ, Lyna P, Peterson B, Garst J, Kelley M, Bastian LA (2009) Persis-
tent smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer is associated with higher
reported pain levels. J Pain 10(3):323–328
de Bruin-Visser JC, Ackerstaff AH, Rehorst H, Retèl VP, Hilgers FJM (2012) Inte-
gration of a smoking cessation program in the treatment protocol for
patients with head and neck and lung cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryn-
gol 269(2):659–665
Dresler CM, Bailey M, Roper CR, Patterson GA, Cooper JD (1996) Smoking ces-
sation and lung cancer resection. Chest 110:1199–1202
Duffy SA, Louzon SA, Gritz ER (2012) Why do cancer patients smoke and what
can providers do about it? Community Oncol 9(11):344
Ebbert JO, Wyatt KD, Hays JT, Klee EW, Hurt RD (2010) Varenicline for smoking
cessation: efficacy, safety, and treatment recommendations. Patient
Prefer Adherence 4:355
Ehlers S, Bronars C (2012) Effect of smoking on the outcomes of cancer
patients after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Stem Cells
Cancer Stem Cells 8:337–343
Ehlers SL, Gastineau DA, Patten CA, Decker PA, Rausch SM, Cerhan JR et al
(2011) The impact of smoking on outcomes among patients undergo-
ing hematopoietic SCT for the treatment of acute leukemia. Bone
Marrow Transplant 46:285–290
Elfeddali I, Bolman C, Candel MJJ, Wiers RW, De Vries H (2012) The role of self-
efficacy, recovery self-efficacy, and preparatory planning in predicting
short-term smoking relapse. Br J Health Psychol 17(1):185–201
Emmons KM, Sprunck-Harrild K, Puleo E, de Moor J (2013) Provider advice
about smoking cessation and pharmacotherapy among cancer survi-
vors who smoke: practice guidelines are not translating. Transl Behav
Med 3(2):211–217
Eng L, Su J, Qiu X, Palepu PR, Hon H, Fadhel E, Liu G (2014) Second-hand
smoke as a predictor of smoking cessation among lung cancer survi-
vors. J Clin Oncol 32(6):564–570
Etter JF, Bullen C (2011) Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfac-
tion and perceived efficacy. Addiction 106(11):2017–2028
Fagerström K, Eissenberg T (2012) Dependence on tobacco and nicotine
products: a case for product-specific assessment. Nicotine Tob Res
Farsalinos KE, Polosa R (2014) Safety evaluation and risk assessment of elec-
tronic cigarettes as tobacco cigarette substitutes: a systematic review.
Ther Adv Drug Saf 5(2):67–86
Ferguson SG, Gitchell JG, Shiffman S, Sembower MA, Rohay JM, Allen J (2011)
Providing accurate safety information may increase a smoker’s willing-
ness to use nicotine replacement therapy as part of a quit attempt.
Addict Behav 36(7):713–716
Field M, Munafò MR, Franken IH (2009) A meta-analytic investigation of the
relationship between attentional bias and subjective craving in sub-
stance abuse. Psychol Bull 135(4):589
Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ et al (2000) Treating tobacco use and depend-
ence. A clinical practice guideline. US Department of Health and
Human Services: AHRQ publication No. 00-0032, Rockville
Fiore M, Jean CR, Baker TB, Bailey WC, Benowitz NL, Curry SJ, Wers L (2008)
Treating tobacco use and dependence: update 2008. U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Public Health
Service, Rockville
Gallus S, Muttarak R, Franchi M, Pacifici R, Colombo P, Boffetta P, La Vecchia C
(2013) Why do smokers quit? Eur J Cancer Prev 22(1):96–101
Gandini S, Botteri E, Iodice S, Boniol M, Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, Boyle
P (2008) Tobacco smoking and cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer
Garces YI, Schroeder DR, Nirelli LM, Croghan GA, Croghan IT, Foote RL, Hurt
RD (2004) Tobacco use outcomes among patients with head and neck
carcinoma treated for nicotine dependence. Cancer 101(1):116–124
Gill DL et al (2013) Physical activity and quality of life. J Prev Med Public Health
46(Suppl 1):S28–S34
Gonzales D, Rennard SI, Nides M, Oncken C, Azoulay S, Billing CB, Reeves KR
(2006) Varenicline, an α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor partial
agonist, vs sustained-release bupropion and placebo for smoking ces-
sation. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 296(1):47–55
Griebel B, Wewers ME, Baker CA (1998) The effectiveness of a nurse-managed
minimal smoking-cessation intervention among hospitalized patients
with cancer. In: Oncology nursing forum, vol 25, no 5, pp 897–902
Gritz ER (1991) Smoking and smoking cessation in cancer patients. Br J Addict
Gritz ER, Demark-Wahnefried W (2009) Health behaviors influence cancer
survival. J Clin Oncol 27(12):1930–1932
Gritz ER, Carr CR, Rapkin D, Abemayor E, Chang LJ, Wong WK, Chonkich G
(1993) Predictors of long-term smoking cessation in head and neck
cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2(3):261–270
Gritz ER, Dresler C, Sarna L (2005) Smoking, the missing drug interaction in
clinical trials: ignoring the obvious. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev
Gritz ER, Toll BA, Warren GW (2014) Tobacco use in the oncology setting:
advancing clinical practice and research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark
Prev 23(1):3–9
Hawari FI, Obeidat NA, Ayub HS, Sattam S, Dawahrah SFH (2013) Smoking
cessation treatment and outcomes in medium to heavy cigarette
smokers being treated for cancer in Jordan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev
Hoogendoorn M, Feenstra TL, Hoogenveen RT, Rutten-van Molken MP (2010)
Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation
interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Thorax 65(8):711–718
Hurt RD, Ebbert JO, Hays JT, McFadden DD (2009) Treating tobacco depend-
ence in a medical setting. CA Cancer J Clin 59(5):314–326
Husten CG (2009) How should we define light or intermittent smoking? Does
it matter? Nicot Tob Res ntp010
Issa JS, Abe TO, Moura S, Santos PC, Pereira AC (2013) Effectiveness of coad-
ministration of varenicline, bupropion, and serotonin reuptake inhibi-
tors in a smoking cessation program in the real-life setting. Nicotine
Tob Res 15(6):1146–1150
Jorenby DE, Hays JT, Rigotti NA, Azoulay S, Watsky EJ, Williams KE, Reeves KR
(2006) Efficacy of varenicline, an α4β2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor
Page 17 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
partial agonist, vs placebo or sustained-release bupropion for smoking
cessation. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 296(1):56–63
Khullar D, Schroeder SA, Maa J (2013) Helping smokers quit around the time of
surgery. JAMA 309(10):993–994
Klemp I, Steffenssen M, Bakholdt V, Thygesen T, Sørensen JA (2016) Counseling
is effective for smoking cessation in head and neck cancer patients—a
systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg
Klosky JL, Tyc VL, Garces-Webb DM, Buscemi J, Klesges RC, Hudson MM (2007)
Emerging issues in smoking among adolescent and adult cancer survi-
vors. Cancer 110(11):2408–2419
Krebber AMH, Buffart LM, Kleijn G, Riepma IC, Bree R, Leemans CR, Verdonck-
de Leeuw IM (2014) Prevalence of depression in cancer patients: a
meta-analysis of diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments.
Psycho Oncol 23(2):121–130
Lancaster T, Stead LF (2005) Self-help interventions for smoking cessation.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:3
Land SR, Cronin WM, Wickerham DL, Costantino JP, Christian NJ, Klein WM,
Ganz PA (2011) Cigarette smoking, obesity, physical activity, and alcohol
use as predictors of chemoprevention adherence in the national surgi-
cal adjuvant breast and bowel project p-1 breast cancer prevention
trial. Cancer Prev Res 4(9):1393–1400
Lichtenstein E, Glasgow RE, Lando HA, Ossip-Klein DJ, Boles SM (1996) Tel-
ephone counseling for smoking cessation: rationales and meta-analytic
review of evidence. Health Educ Res 11(2):243–257
Lucchiari C, Masiero M, Pravettoni G (2013) Cognitive approach to nutrition in
a patient-centered approach: implementing tailored nutrition advice
for oncology patients. Eur J Person Centered Healthc 1(1):265–273
Lucchiari C, Masiero M, Veronesi G, Maisonneuve P, Spina S, Jemos C, Omodeo
Salè E, Pravettoni G (2016) Benefits of E-cigarettes among heavy smok-
ers undergoing a lung cancer screening program: randomized con-
trolled trial protocol. JMIR Res Prot 5(1):e21. doi:10.2196/resprot.4805
Marks DI, Ballen K, Logan BR, Wang Z, Sobocinski KA, Bacigalupo A et al (2009)
The effect of smoking on allogeneic transplant outcomes. Biol Blood
Marrow Transpl 15:1277–1287
Martinez E, Tatum KL, Weber DM, Kuzla N, Pendley A, Campbell K, Schnoll RA
(2009) Issues related to implementing a smoking cessation clinical trial
for cancer patients. Cancer Causes Control 20(1):97–104
Masiero M, Lucchiari C, Pravettoni G (2015) Personal fable: optimistic bias in
cigarette smokers. Int J High Risk Behav Addict 4(1):e20939
May S, West R (2000) Do social support interventions (“buddy systems”) aid
smoking cessation? A review. Tob Control 9(4):415–422
Mazza R, Lina M, Boffi R, Invernizzi G, De Marco C, Pierotti M (2010) Taking care
of smoker cancer patients: a review and some recommendations. Ann
Oncol mdp599
McBride CM, Ostroff JS (2003) Teachable moments for promoting smoking
cessation: the context of cancer care and survivorship. Cancer Control
McClave AK, Dube SR, Strine TW, Kroenke K, Caraballo RS, Mokdad AH (2009)
Associations between smoking cessation and anxiety and depression
among US adults. Addict Behav 34(6):491–497
Meenan RT, Stevens VJ, Hornbrook MC, La Chance P, Glasgow RE, Hollis JF,
Lichtenstein E, Vogt TM (1998) Cost-effectiveness of a hospital-based
smoking cessation intervention. Med Care 36(5):670–678
Milbury K, Badr H, Carmack CL (2012) The role of blame in the psychosocial
adjustment of couples coping with lung cancer. Ann Behav Med
Mills EJ, Wu P, Lockhart I, Thorlund K, Puhan M, Ebbert JO (2012) Comparisons
of high-dose and combination nicotine replacement therapy, vareni-
cline, and bupropion for smoking cessation: a systematic review and
multiple treatment meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 44:588–597
Morgan G, Schnoll RA, Alfano CM, Evans SE, Goldstein A, Ostroff J, Cox LS
(2011) National cancer institute conference on treating tobacco
dependence at cancer centers. J Oncol Pract 7(3):178–182
Nayan S, Gupta MK, Sommer DD (2011) Evaluating smoking cessation inter-
ventions and cessation rates in cancer patients: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. ISRN Oncol
NCCN (2015) Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: smoking cessation, ver-
sion I. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 13(4):xliv
Nides M (2008) Update on pharmacologic options for smoking cessation
treatment. Am J Med 121(4):S20–S31
Ostroff JS, Burkhalter JE, Cinciripini PM, Li Y, Shiyko MP, Lam CY, Manna R (2013)
Randomized trial of a presurgical scheduled reduced smoking interven-
tion for patients newly diagnosed with cancer
Park EW, Schultz JK, Tudiver F, Campbell T, Becker L (2004) Enhancing partner
support to improve smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3
Park ER, Japuntich S, Temel J, Lanuti M, Pandiscio J, Hilgenberg J, Rigotti NA
(2011) A smoking cessation intervention for thoracic surgery and
oncology clinics: a pilot trial. J Thorac Oncol 6(6):1059
Pepper JK, Emery SL, Ribisl KM, Rini CM, Brewer NT (2014) How risky is it to use
e-cigarettes? Smokers’ beliefs about their health risks from using novel
and traditional tobacco products. J Behav Med 1–9
Pravettoni G, Masiero M, Gorini A, Lucchiari C (2012) Food choice and smoking
behavior: a crossroads in youth. In: Food consumption, communication,
life styles and fashion/[a cura di] M. Bustreo, V. Russo.—Milano Qanat
Price S, Hitsman B, VeluzWilkins A, Blazekovic S, Brubaker TR, Leone F, Patel
J (2016) The use of varenicline to treat nicotine dependence among
patients with cancer. Psycho Oncol
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1983) Stages and processes of self-change of
smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol
Prochaska JJ, Hilton JF (2012). Risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events
associated with varenicline use for tobacco cessation: systematic
review and meta-analysis. BMJ Br Med J 344
Rigotti NA, Munafo MR, Stead LF (2008) Smoking cessation interventions
for hospitalized smokers: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med
Sanderson-Cox L, Sloan JA, Patten CA et al (2002) Smoking behavior of 226
patients with diagnosis of stage IIIA/IIIB non-small cell lung cancer.
Psychooncology 11:472–478
Schnoll RA, Malstrom M, James C, Rothman RL, Miller SM, Ridge JA, Goldberg
M (2002) Correlates of tobacco use among smokers and recent quitters
diagnosed with cancer. Patient Educ Couns 46(2):137–145
Schnoll RA, Zhang B, Rue M, Krook JE, Spears WT, Marcus AC, Engstrom PF
(2003) Brief physician-initiated quit-smoking strategies for clinical
oncology settings: a trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 21(2):355–365
Schnoll RA, Rothman RL, Newman H, Lerman C, Miller SM, Movsas B, Cheng
J (2004) Characteristics of cancer patients entering a smoking cessa-
tion program and correlates of quit motivation: implications for the
development of tobacco control programs for cancer patients. Psycho
Oncol 13(5):346–358
Schnoll RA, Rothman RL, Wielt DB, Pedri H, Wang H, Babb J, Lerman C (2005)
A randomized pilot study of cognitive-behavioral therapy versus basic
health education for smoking cessation among cancer patients. Ann
Behav Med 30(1):1–11
Schnoll RA, Martinez E, Tatum KL, Weber DM, Kuzla N, Glass M, Leone F (2010)
A bupropion smoking cessation clinical trial for cancer patients. Cancer
Causes Control 21(6):811–820
Shin DW, Park JH, Kim SY, Park EW, Yang HK, Ahn E, Seo HG (2014) Guilt, cen-
sure, and concealment of active smoking status among cancer patients
and family members after diagnosis: a nationwide study. Psycho Oncol
Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk
as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk
Anal 24(2):311–322
Song F, Raftery J, Aveyard P, Hyde C, Barton P, Woolacott N (2002) Cost-
effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation:
a literature review and a decision analytic analysis. Med Decis Making
22(5 suppl):S26–S37
Spek V, Lemmens F, Chatrou M, van Kempen S, Pouwer F, Pop V (2013)
Development of a smoking abstinence self-efficacy questionnaire. Int J
Behav Med 1–6
Stanislaw AE, Wewers ME (1994) A smoking cessation intervention with hospi-
talized surgical cancer patients: a pilot study. Cancer Nurs 17(2):81–86
Stead LF, Perera R, Lancaster T (2006) Telephone counselling for smoking ces-
sation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD002850
Stead LF, Perera R, Bullen C, Mant D, Lancaster T (2008) Nicotine replacement
therapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:1
Page 18 of 18
Lucchiari et al. SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1136
Tammemägi MC, Berg CD, Riley TL, Cunningham CR, Taylor KL (2014) Impact of
lung cancer screening results on smoking cessation. J Natl Cancer Inst
Thomsen T, Villebro N, Møller AM (2010) Interventions for preoperative smok-
ing cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD002294
Thomsen T, Tønnesen H, Okholm M, Kroman N, Maibom A, Sauerberg ML,
Møller AM (2010b) Brief smoking cessation intervention in relation to
breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Nicotine Tob Res
Toll BA, Brandon TH, Gritz ER et al (2013) Assessing tobacco use by cancer
patients and facilitating cessation: an American Association for Cancer
Research policy statement. Clin Cancer Res 19:1941–1948
Tzelepis F, Paul CL, Wiggers J, Walsh RA, Knight J, Duncan SL, Daly J (2011) A
randomized controlled trial of proactive telephone counseling on cold-
called smokers’ cessation rates. Tob Control 20(1):40–46
Vaidya V, Hufstader-Gabriel M, Gangan N, Shah S, Bechtol R (2014) Utilization
of smoking-cessation pharmacotherapy among chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer patients. Curr Med Res
Opin 30(6):1043–1050
Videtic GM, Stitt LW, Dar AR, Kocha WI, Tomiak AT, Truong PT, Edward WY (2003)
Continued cigarette smoking by patients receiving concurrent chemo-
radiotherapy for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer is associated with
decreased survival. J Clin Oncol 21(8):1544–1549
Wagener TL, Siegel M, Borrelli B (2012) Electronic cigarettes: achieving a bal-
anced perspective. Addiction 107(9):1545–1548
Wakefield M, Olver I, Whitford H, Rosenfeld E (2004) Motivational interviewing
as a smoking cessation intervention for patients with cancer: rand-
omized controlled trial. Nurs Res 53(6):396–405
Walker MS, Larsen RJ, Zona DM, Govindan R, Fisher EB (2004) Smoking urges
and relapse among lung cancer patients: findings from a preliminary
retrospective study. Prev Med 39(3):449–457
Walker MS, Vidrine DJ, Gritz ER, Larsen RJ, Yan Y, Govindan R, Fisher EB (2006)
Smoking relapse during the first year after treatment for early-
stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev
Waller LL, Weaver KE, Petty WJ, Miller AA (2010) Effects of continued tobacco
use during treatment of lung cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther
Warren GW, Marshall JR, Cummings KM, Toll B, Gritz ER, Hutson A, Dibaj S,
Herbst R, Dresler C (2013) Practice patterns and perceptions of thoracic
oncology providers on tobacco use and cessation in cancer patients. J
Thorac Oncol 8(5):543
Weaver KE, Danhauer SC, Tooze JA, Blackstock AW, Spangler J, Thomas L,
Sutfin EL (2012) Smoking cessation counseling beliefs and behaviors of
outpatient oncology providers. Oncologist 17(3):455–462
Weinstein ND (1989) Optimistic biases about personal risks. Science
Weinstein ND, Marcus SE, Moser RP (2005) Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about
their risk. Tob Control 14(1):55–59
Westmaas JL, Newton CC, Stevens VL, Flanders WD, Gapstur SM, Jacobs
EJ (2015) Does a recent cancer diagnosis predict smoking cessa-
tion? an analysis from a large prospective US cohort. J Clin Oncol
WHO (2011) Report on the global tobacco epidemic: warning about the
dangers of tobacco
Zevallos JP, Mallen MJ, Lam CY, Karam-Hage M, Blalock J, Wetter DW, Cinciripini
PM (2009) Complications of radiotherapy in laryngopharyngeal cancer.
Cancer 115(19):4636–4644
Zhang J, Kamdar O, Le W, Rosen GD, Upadhyay D (2009) Nicotine induces
resistance to chemotherapy by modulating mitochondrial signaling in
lung cancer. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 40(2):135
Zwar N, Richmond R, Borland R, Peters M, Litt J, Bell J, Caldwell B, Ferretter I
(2011) Supporting smoking cessation: a guide for health professionals.
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Melbourne
... Smoking tobacco and, to a lesser extent, e-cigarettes is well-known to negatively influence cancer's prognosis and forms a major risk factor for various cancer types and several other chronic diseases [90][91][92]. Smoking cessation has a favourable effect on treatment efficacy, psychological well-being and general quality of life [93]. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network offers a guideline for smoking cessation, consisting of pharmacotherapy (e.g., nicotine replacement therapy or varenicline) and behaviour therapy ( Figure 2) [47,94]. ...
... This can be explained by the fact that nicotine produces an acute analgesic effect, making it much harder for them to stop due to the rewarding sensation they experience [99]. Despite its short-term analgesic effect, tobacco smoking sustains pain in the long-term [93]. This underlines the importance of incorporating antismoking medications in CSs with pain to avoid relapse during nicotine withdrawal [99]. ...
Full-text available
This review discusses chronic pain, multiple modifiable lifestyle factors, such as stress, insomnia, diet, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity, and the relationship between these lifestyle factors and pain after cancer. Chronic pain is known to be a common consequence of cancer treatments, which considerably impacts cancer survivors’ quality of life when it remains untreated. Improvements in lifestyle behaviour are known to reduce mortality, comorbid conditions (i.e., cardiovascular diseases, other cancer, and recurrence) and cancer-related side-effects (i.e., fatigue and psychological issues). An inadequate stress response plays an important role in dysregulating the body’s autonomic, endocrine, and immune responses, creating a problematic back loop with pain. Next, given the high vulnerability of cancer survivors to insomnia, addressing and treating those sleep problems should be another target in pain management due to its capacity to increase hyperalgesia. Furthermore, adherence to a healthy diet holds great anti-inflammatory potential for relieving pain after cancer. Additionally, a healthy diet might go hand in hand with weight reduction in the case of obesity. Consuming alcohol and smoking have an acute analgesic effect in the short-term, with evidence lacking in the long-term. However, this acute effect is outweighed by other harms on cancer survivors’ general health. Last, informing patients about the benefits of an active lifestyle and reducing a sedentary lifestyle after cancer treatment must be emphasised when considering the proven benefits of physical activity in this population. A multimodal approach addressing all relevant lifestyle factors together seems appropriate for managing comorbid conditions, side-effects, and chronic pain after cancer. Further research is needed to evaluate whether modifiable lifestyle factors have a beneficial influence on chronic pain among cancer survivors.
... Researchers in the fields of psychology and economics generally agree on the importance of two fundamental human motivations, namely the desire to reduce uncertainty and the desire to gain advantage (Bentham, 1970); contrary to the first theories, which saw decision making linked to rational choice, today it is known that human decisions are based both on hedonic and emotional motivations and on rational motivations (Cabanac, 1992). Choice behavior should be considered the result of two motivational processes, one more deliberate and focused on wider objectives and the other more instinctive, heavily influenced by emotions (Loewenstein et al., 2015;Mazzocco et al., 2019;Lucchiari et al., 2016). ...
Full-text available
People often make life choices that will affect their future (e.g. getting married). However, research on decision making focuses more on abstract dilemmas than on decision making. The aim of this study is threefold: to analyze (1) whether people rely mainly on intuitive or rational processing (System 1 or 2) when making life choices; (2) whether some characteristics of recalled life choices (e.g., difficulty in making the decision) differ between life areas (sentimental and work contexts); (3) whether personality traits and System 1 or 2 utilization may predict final satisfaction in life choices. By conducting a cross-sectional study on 188 participants' recall of selected life decisions (in the sentimental and work life areas) we found that System 1 is more involved than System 2 in sentimental choices while the opposite happens for work ones. Lastly, satisfaction in life choices is partially predicted by the involvement of cognitive systems and individual differences, with different predictors emerging across life areas. Discussion suggests directions for future research on naturalistic decision making.
... The mean age of study participants with habits and oral mucosal lesions in the present study was 45 years. Similar results were seen in a study, where the oral lesions are prevalent in 40 to 50 years of age group [22]. The result of the present study was in contrast to the study done by [23], with the mean of 35 years. ...
... Furthermore, smoking in the perioperative period can increase the risk of pulmonary embolism and poor wound healing, diminish the efficacy of chemotherapy, impair the function of the immune system, thus resulting in an increased risk of infection. Available data suggest that up to 50% of patients who were smoking before a cancer diagnosis, continue to smoke during treatment [5], unaware of the harm related to continued tobacco use and the undervalued benefits of quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis. Such benefits include a reduced risk of death by 30% to 40% [6], longer survival, improved chances of successful cancer treatment, less serious adverse events, increased energy and a better quality of life [7]. ...
Full-text available
Available data suggest that up to 50% of cancer patients, who were smoking before diagnosis, continue to smoke during treatment, unaware of the damage caused due to continued tobacco use and the undervalued benefits of quitting smoking after a cancer diagnosis. Structured initiatives aimed at helping cancer patients give up smoking was undertaken at the M. Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw (Poland) within the pilot project “Quitting Supports Treatment (QST)”. QST was launched in September 2019 and was a joint initiative of two departments: 1. The Cancer Epidemiology and Primary Prevention Department and 2. The Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma Department. Moreover, QST works with the significant support of Department of Nurses and Midwives Professional Development. The preliminary results suggest the need for several organizational improvements in order to increase QST participation rates. Revision of previous experiences could bring valuable conclusions with regards to the effectiveness of QST, but also for other similar projects.
... • cognitive behavioral (n=29): a directive psychotherapy approach that supports patients in achieving personal challenges by promoting healthy cognitive representations and behaviors. It is always structured and limited in time, involving homeworks to transfer the cognitive and behavioral strategies learned from the therapeutic setting to real life contexts [18,19]; ...
Full-text available
Nowadays, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used in the healthcare field, especially to identify diagnosis and treatment. Yet, mental health professionals (e.g., counselors, psychiatrics, and psychotherapists) are skeptical towards AI for practice. Some mental health professionals harbor negative attitudes towards AI because it lacks feelings, emotions, and active listening, or they are not confident in their own ability to use technology. Moreover, attitudes towards technology may be influenced by professionals' methodological approach, which may be more or less open to automatization or informatization of activities. In a preliminary study, 100 mental health professionals were presented with a description of a futuristic AI that could play the role of a psychotherapist and treat mental health patients, then they filled out a questionnaire on perceived usefulness, performance and other attitudes relevant to technology acceptance research. We hypothesize that methodological approach to psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral vs. psychodynamic vs. systemic-relational) would be associated with attitudes towards AI in mental health. Results showed that professionals with a cognitive behavioral approach were more positive than the others regarding AI. In particular, cognitive psychotherapists evidenced higher belief of utility and desirability towards AI. In addition, they were more comfortable with AI than others. AI tools should be developed cautiously, taking into account professionals' attitudes and viewpoints.
... Smoking further increases the risk of developing a second primary cancer and has strong associations with increased toxicity from cancer treatment [3]. Almost half of patients diagnosed with cancer who smoke may either continue to smoke while in treatment or relapse after successfully quitting, both of which complicate cancer care [4]. The annual costs of additional cancer treatment incurred by continued smoking are conservatively estimated at USD 3.4 billion in the United States [5]. ...
Full-text available
Tobacco use is causally associated with the risk of developing multiple health conditions, including over a dozen types of cancer, and is responsible for 30% of cancer deaths in the U [...]
Full-text available
The burnout syndrome (BS) is defined by the WHO as the reaction that the individual may have to face work demands and pressure that do not fit his knowledge and abilities, and that test his ability to cope with the situation. There are 3 essential components for SB: Depersonalization: It is characterized by negative feelings and attitudes of cynicism towards people with whom one is surrounded in work environment, this increases interpersonal distance and relational automatisms. Lack of personal fulfillment at work: It is characterized by the fact that the patient tends to evaluate himself negatively in terms of his work ability and feels dissatisfaction with his professional role. Emotional exhaustion: It is characterized by a combination of emotional, physical and mental fatigue, anhedonia, helplessness and uselessness. Currently the treatment is based on attacking the syndrome from an individual point of view and at the same time organizational. Therefore, the objective of this research is to determine the main treatments used for burnout syndrome, mentioning both individual and organizational. Articles from the Redalyc, Scielo, Pubmed and Google Scholar databases were chosen, the keywords were treatment + burnout, and only the articles that showed a systemic review with meta-analysis in the treatment of burnout syndrome were taken. 12 types of interventions were found, of which the most accepted and studied in general population is cognitive behavioral, finding a mean effect size for the improvement of burnout syndrome symptoms.
Smoking cessation results in improved cancer treatment outcomes. However, the factors associated with successful implementation of cessation programs in cancer care settings are not well understood. This paper presents the reach the reach and effectiveness of cessation programs implemented in NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted among C3I Cancer Centers from July 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 (N = 38). Reach was calculated as the proportion of patients reporting current smoking that received cessation treatment and was analyzed overall and by organizational characteristics. Smoking abstinence rates were determined by the proportion of participants self-reporting smoking abstinence in the previous 7 and 30 days at 6 months after treatment. On average, nearly 30% of patients who smoked received any cessation treatment. In-person counseling was most implemented but reached an average of only 13.2% of patients who smoked. Although less frequently implemented, average reach was highest for counseling provided via an interactive voice response system (55.8%) and telephone-based counseling (18.7%). Reach was higher at centers with more established programs, electronic health record referral systems, and higher smoking prevalence. At 6-month follow-up, about a fifth of participants on average had not smoked in the past 7 days (21.7%) or past 30 days (18.6%). Variations in reach by organizational characteristics suggest that leadership engagement and investment in technology-facilitated programs may yield higher levels of reach. Understanding which implementation and intervention strategies facilitate greater cessation treatment reach and effectiveness could lead to improved outcomes among cancer patients who smoke.
The objective of this study was to determining the frequency of different sub-types of pathogenic CDH1 germline mutations in healthy and asymptomatic individuals from families with the hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) syndrome. Relevant literature dating from 1998 to 2019 was systematically searched for data on CDH1 germline mutations. The collected variants were classified according to their subtype into the following classes: missense, non-sense, splicing, insertions and deletions. The χ ² test was used to estimate if the difference observed between patients with gastric cancer (GC) and unaffected individuals was statistically significant. CDH1 genetic screening data were retrieved for 224 patients with GC and 289 healthy individuals. Among the subjects that had tested CDH1 positive, splicing mutations were found in 30.4% of the healthy individuals and in 15.2% of the patients with GC (p=0.0076). Missense mutations were also found to occur in healthy subjects with higher frequency (22.2%) than in GC-affected individuals (18.3%), but the difference was not significant in this case. In families meeting the clinical criteria for the HDGC syndrome, CDH1 splicing and missense germline mutations have been reported to occur with higher frequency in healthy subjects than in patients with cancer. This preliminary observation suggests that not all pathogenic CDH1 germline mutations confer the same risk of developing GC.
Full-text available
ARCTT is a peer-reviewed all-purpose journal covering a wide variety of topics of interest to the mental health, neuroscience, and rehabilitation communities. The mission of ARCTT is to provide systematic, periodic examinations of scholarly advances in the field of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine through original investigations in the telemedicine and cybertherapy areas, novel experimental clinical studies, and critical authoritative reviews. It is directed to healthcare providers and researchers who are interested in the applications of advanced media for improving the delivery and efficacy of mental healthcare and rehabilitative services.
Full-text available
This theoretical overview stresses the importance of a personalized approach to the study of the relationship between nutrition and prevention by the use of a cognitive approach. An adequate nutrition program should play a fundamental aspect of patient-centered care, but also is the best prevention strategy in disease-free subjects. We argue that an integrated methodology, based on a patient-centered and tailored approach, must assess all the factors involved within individual food choices in order to recognize values, beliefs and needs related to food intake, both in cancer patients and in disease-free patients. An integrated approach is advocated, since the tailoring process requires both biological and psychological data in order to appraise the individual’s needs and promote adequate action plans. This process of integrating information delivered from different sources is what we call a “cognitive approach” to nutrition
Full-text available
Background: Smoking is a global public health problem. For this reason, experts have called smoking dependence a global epidemic. Over the past 5 years, sales of electronic cigarettes, or e-cigarettes, have been growing strongly in many countries. Yet there is only partial evidence that e-cigarettes are beneficial for smoking cessation. In particular, although it has been proven that nicotine replacement devices may help individuals stop smoking and tolerate withdrawal symptoms, e-cigarettes' power to increase the quitting success rate is still limited, ranging from 5% to 20% dependent on smokers' baseline conditions as shown by a recent Cochrane review. Consequently, it is urgent to know if e-cigarettes may have a higher success rate than other nicotine replacement methods and under what conditions. Furthermore, the effects of the therapeutic setting and the relationship between individual characteristics and the success rate have not been tested. This protocol is particularly innovative, because it aims to test the effectiveness of electronic devices in a screening program (the COSMOS II lung cancer prevention program at the European Institute of Oncology), where tobacco reduction is needed to lower individuals' lung cancer risks. Objective: This protocol was designed with the primary aim of investigating the role of tobacco-free cigarettes in helping smokers improve lung health and either quit smoking or reduce their tobacco consumption. In particular, we aim to investigate the impact of a 3-month e-cigarettes program to reduce smoking-related respiratory symptoms (eg, dry cough, shortness of breath, mouth irritation, and phlegm) through reduced consumption of tobacco cigarettes. Furthermore, we evaluate the behavioral and psychological (eg, well-being, mood, and quality of life) effects of the treatment. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, three-parallel group study. The study is organized as a nested randomized controlled study with 3 branches: a nicotine e-cigarettes group, a nicotine-free e-cigarettes group, and a control group. The study is nested in a screening program for early lung cancer detection in heavy smokers. Results: The study is open and is still recruiting. Conclusions: Stopping or reducing tobacco consumption should be a main goal of any health organization. However, traditional antismoking programs are expensive and not always effective. Therefore, favoring a partial or complete shift to e-cigarettes in heavy smokers (eg, persons at high risk for a number of diseases) could be considered a moral imperative. However, before following this path, sound and reliable data on large samples and in a variety of contexts are required. Trial registration: NCT02422914; (Archived by WebCite at
Background: Continuing to smoke after a cancer diagnosis can adversely influence the prognosis for patients with cancer. However, remarkably few studies have carefully examined the use of first-line FDA-approved medications for nicotine dependence in patients with cancer. This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and effect on cessation of varenicline for smoking cessation in patients with cancer. Methods: Data from 132 treatment-seeking smokers who received 12 weeks of open-label varenicline and five brief behavioral counseling sessions were used to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and impact on cessation of varenicline. The effects of abstinence on cognitive function and affect were also explored. Results: Of 459 patients screened, 306 were eligible for the study (66.7%) and 132 entered treatment (43.1%). Retention was 84.1% over 12 weeks. The rate of biochemically verified abstinence at week 12 was 40.2%. Expected side effects were reported (e.g. sleep problems, nausea), but there were no reports of elevated depressed mood, suicidal thoughts, or cardiovascular events. Abstinence was associated with improved cognitive function and reduced negative affect over time (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Although many patients with cancer who smoke did not enroll in treatment, the side effect profile of varenicline and its effect on short-term cessation converge with what is seen in the general population. Further, as with the general population, abstinence while taking varenicline may lead to improved cognitive function and reduced negative affect. The present data support the use of varenicline to help patients with cancer to quit smoking. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the efficacy of smoking cessation counseling and the resulting quit rate in patients with head and neck cancer. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Predictor variables were smoking cessation counseling and smoking cessation interventions. The outcome was smoking cessation. Data collection and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 of the authors. Selected publications were assessed for potential risk of bias, and the level of evidence was evaluated using National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines. Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Eight studies involving 1,239 patients were included (3 randomized controlled trials, 3 cohorts, and 2 case series). Smoking cessation was achieved considerably more often in patients who received smoking cessation counseling compared with those who received usual care. Conclusions: This review shows that counseling supplemented with nicotine replacement therapy increases the possibility for smoking cessation in patients with head and neck cancer.
Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Recent research in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HSCT) populations has begun to examine smoking cigarettes as a risk factor for adverse transplant outcomes. Based on these early studies, estimated prevalence rates vary widely. Lifetime history of smoking among HSCT patients likely approximates that of the general population, while current use appears less than the general population. Smoking has been associated with multiple adverse HSCT outcomes, including shorter duration of disease-free and overall survival; higher treatment related mortality; higher pulmonary infection and respiratory failure rates; higher rates of disease recurrence; increased risk for cardiovascular events; and longer duration of hospitalization. Potential mechanisms are likely many, and include impaired bone marrow hematopoiesis, inflammation, impaired pulmonary function, and also significant associations with other maladaptive health behaviors know to adversely affect general population health outcomes, but understudied in HSCT populations. Future directions for tobacco research in HSCT should focus on use of behavior science methodology to minimize biases common to self-report methodology, and analyzing the effects of both current and lifetime use. Current use is a modifiable risk factor. Cancer diagnosis and HSCT serve as “teachable moments” during which patient motivation to quit tobacco use is increased. Survivor care plans serve as a timely platform for integration of evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment into a comprehensive care plan that targets all known significant risk factors to optimize HSCT outcomes.