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.     

Trends in cancer incidence by socioeconomic deprivation in Germany in 2007 to 2018: An ecological registry-based study

Age-standardized cancer incidence has decreased over the last years for many cancer sites in developed countries. Whether these trends led to narrowing or widening socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence is unknown. Using cancer registry data covering 48 million inhabitants in Germany, the ecological association between age-standardized total and site specific (colorectal, lung, prostate and breast) cancer incidence in 2007 to 2018 and a deprivation index on district level (aggregated to quintiles) was investigated. Incidence in the most and least deprived districts were compared using Poisson models. Average annual percentage changes (AAPCs) and differences in AAPCs between deprivation quintiles were assessed using Joinpoint regression analyses. Age-standardized incidence decreased strongly between 2007 and 2018 for total cancer and all cancer sites (except female lung cancer), irrespective of the level of deprivation. However, differences in the magnitude of trends across deprivation quintiles resulted in increasing inequalities over time for total cancer, colorectal and lung cancer. For total cancer, the incidence rate ratio between the most and least deprived quintile increased from 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.12) to 1.23 (1.12-1.32) in men and from 1.07 (1.01-1.13) to 1.20 (1.14-1.26) in women. Largest inequalities were observed for lung cancer with 82% (men) and 88% (women) higher incidence in the most vs the least deprived regions in 2018. The observed increase in inequalities in cancer incidence is in alignment with trends in inequalities in risk factor prevalence and partly utilization of screening. Intervention programs targeted at socioeconomically deprived and urban regions are highly needed.     

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.     

Limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in advanced cancers with cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations in the Dutch DRUP and Australian MoST trials

The Dutch Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) and the Australian Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutic (MoST) Program are similar nonrandomized, multidrug, pan-cancer trial platforms that aim to identify signals of clinical activity of molecularly matched targeted therapies or immunotherapies outside their approved indications. Here, we report results for advanced or metastatic cancer patients with tumors harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors palbociclib or ribociclib. We included adult patients that had therapy-refractory solid malignancies with the following alterations: amplifications of CDK4, CDK6, CCND1, CCND2 or CCND3, or complete loss of CDKN2A or SMARCA4. Within MoST, all patients were treated with palbociclib, whereas in DRUP, palbociclib and ribociclib were assigned to different cohorts (defined by tumor type and alteration). The primary endpoint for this combined analysis was clinical benefit, defined as confirmed objective response or stable disease ≥16 weeks. We treated 139 patients with a broad variety of tumor types; 116 with palbociclib and 23 with ribociclib. In 112 evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 0% and clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks was 15%. Median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI: 3-5 months), and median overall survival 5 months (95% CI: 4-6 months). In conclusion, only limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in patients with pretreated cancers harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations was observed. Our findings indicate that monotherapy use of palbociclib or ribociclib is not recommended and that merging data of two similar precision oncology trials is feasible.