How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.     

First-line nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric,gastroesophageal junction and esophageal adenocarcinoma: CheckMate 649 Chinese subgroup analysis

First-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) has poor median overall survival (OS; <1 year). We report efficacy and safety results from Chinese patients in the phase III global CheckMate 649 study of nivolumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of GC/GEJC/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Chinese patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC/EAC were randomized to receive nivolumab (360 mg Q3W or 240 mg Q2W) plus chemotherapy (XELOX [capecitabine and oxaliplatin] Q3W or FOLFOX [oxaliplatin, leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil] Q2W), nivolumab plus ipilimumab (not reported) or chemotherapy alone. OS, blinded independent central review-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR) and safety are reported. Of 1581 patients enrolled and randomized, 208 were Chinese. In these patients, nivolumab plus chemotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful improvement in median OS (14.3 vs 10.2 months; HR 0.61 [95% CI: 0.44-0.85]), median PFS (8.3 vs 5.6 months; HR 0.57 [95% CI: 0.40-0.80]), ORR (66% vs 45%) and median DOR (12.2 vs 5.6 months) vs chemotherapy, respectively. The safety profile was acceptable, with no new safety signals observed. Consistent with results from the global primary analysis of CheckMate 649, nivolumab plus chemotherapy demonstrated a clinically meaningful improvement in OS and PFS and higher response rate vs chemotherapy and an acceptable safety profile in Chinese patients. Nivolumab plus chemotherapy represents a new standard first-line treatment for Chinese patients with non-HER2-positive advanced GC/GEJC/EAC.     

Multiscale quantification of morphological heterogeneity with creation of a predictor of longer survival in glioblastoma

Intratumor heterogeneity is a main cause of the dismal prognosis of glioblastoma (GBM). Yet, there remains a lack of a uniform assessment of the degree of heterogeneity. With a multiscale approach, we addressed the hypothesis that intratumor heterogeneity exists on different levels comprising traditional regional analyses, but also innovative methods including computer-assisted analysis of tumor morphology combined with epigenomic data. With this aim, 157 biopsies of 37 patients with therapy-naive IDH-wildtype GBM were analyzed regarding the intratumor variance of protein expression of glial marker GFAP, microglia marker Iba1 and proliferation marker Mib1. Hematoxylin and eosin stained slides were evaluated for tumor vascularization. For the estimation of pixel intensity and nuclear profiling, automated analysis was used. Additionally, DNA methylation profiling was conducted separately for the single biopsies. Scoring systems were established to integrate several parameters into one score for the four examined modalities of heterogeneity (regional, cellular, pixel-level and epigenomic). As a result, we could show that heterogeneity was detected in all four modalities. Furthermore, for the regional, cellular and epigenomic level, we confirmed the results of earlier studies stating that a higher degree of heterogeneity is associated with poorer overall survival. To integrate all modalities into one score, we designed a predictor of longer survival, which showed a highly significant separation regarding the OS. In conclusion, multiscale intratumor heterogeneity exists in glioblastoma and its degree has an impact on overall survival. In future studies, the implementation of a broadly feasible heterogeneity index should be considered.