癌症确诊后戒烟干预的有效性：系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 2 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Journal of Cancer Policy Pub Date : 2023-12-06 DOI:10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100463

Peter R. Scholten , Lukas J.A. Stalpers , Iris Bronsema , Rob M. van Os , Henrike Westerveld , Luc R.C.W. van Lonkhuijzen

{"title":"癌症确诊后戒烟干预的有效性：系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Peter R. Scholten , Lukas J.A. Stalpers , Iris Bronsema , Rob M. van Os , Henrike Westerveld , Luc R.C.W. van Lonkhuijzen","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>patients with cancer who smoke have more side effects during and after treatment, and a lower survival rate than patients with cancer who quit smoking. Supporting patients with cancer to quit smoking should be standard care. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective smoking cessation method for patients diagnosed with cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched. Included were randomized controlled trials and observational studies published after January 2000 with any smoking cessation intervention in patients with any type of cancer. Result of these studies were evaluated in a meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 18,780 papers were retrieved. After duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 72 publications were left. After full text screening, 19 (randomized) controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included. The overall methodological quality of the included studies, rated by GRADE criteria, was very low. Two out of 21 combined intervention trials showed a statistical significant effect. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs and 3 observational studies showed a significant benefit of combined modality interventions (OR 1.67, 95% C.I.: 1.24–2.26, p = 0.0008) and behavioural interventions (OR 1.33, 95% C.I.: 1.02 – 1.74, p = 0.03), but not for single modality pharmacological interventions (OR 1.11; 95% C.I.: 0.69–1.78, p = 0.66).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>A combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions may be the most effective intervention for smoking cessation in patients with cancer.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article 100463"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000802/pdfft?md5=30bd12ea2dd2c95fa8f0af9078874086&pid=1-s2.0-S2213538323000802-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions after cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Peter R. Scholten , Lukas J.A. Stalpers , Iris Bronsema , Rob M. van Os , Henrike Westerveld , Luc R.C.W. van Lonkhuijzen\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>patients with cancer who smoke have more side effects during and after treatment, and a lower survival rate than patients with cancer who quit smoking. Supporting patients with cancer to quit smoking should be standard care. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective smoking cessation method for patients diagnosed with cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched. Included were randomized controlled trials and observational studies published after January 2000 with any smoking cessation intervention in patients with any type of cancer. Result of these studies were evaluated in a meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 18,780 papers were retrieved. After duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 72 publications were left. After full text screening, 19 (randomized) controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included. The overall methodological quality of the included studies, rated by GRADE criteria, was very low. Two out of 21 combined intervention trials showed a statistical significant effect. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs and 3 observational studies showed a significant benefit of combined modality interventions (OR 1.67, 95% C.I.: 1.24–2.26, p = 0.0008) and behavioural interventions (OR 1.33, 95% C.I.: 1.02 – 1.74, p = 0.03), but not for single modality pharmacological interventions (OR 1.11; 95% C.I.: 0.69–1.78, p = 0.66).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>A combination of pharmacological and behavioural interventions may be the most effective intervention for smoking cessation in patients with cancer.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38212,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"volume\":\"39 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100463\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000802/pdfft?md5=30bd12ea2dd2c95fa8f0af9078874086&pid=1-s2.0-S2213538323000802-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cancer Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000802\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538323000802","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目标与戒烟的癌症患者相比，吸烟的癌症患者在治疗期间和治疗后副作用更大，生存率更低。支持癌症患者戒烟应成为标准护理。本系统综述旨在确定对确诊癌症患者最有效的戒烟方法。纳入的研究包括 2000 年 1 月以后发表的针对任何类型癌症患者的任何戒烟干预措施的随机对照试验和观察性研究。结果共检索到 18,780 篇论文。根据标题和摘要去除重复内容并进行排除后，剩下 72 篇论文。经过全文筛选，共纳入 19 项（随机）对照试验和 20 项观察性研究。根据 GRADE 标准，纳入研究的总体方法学质量很低。在 21 项综合干预试验中，有两项试验显示出显著的统计学效果。对 18 项研究性试验和 3 项观察性研究进行的元分析表明，综合干预方式（OR 1.67，95% C.I.：1.24-2.26，p = 0.0008）和行为干预方式（OR 1.33，95% C.I.：1.02-1.74，p = 0.03）具有显著疗效。结论药物和行为干预相结合可能是癌症患者最有效的戒烟干预方法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

The effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions after cancer diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

patients with cancer who smoke have more side effects during and after treatment, and a lower survival rate than patients with cancer who quit smoking. Supporting patients with cancer to quit smoking should be standard care. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the most effective smoking cessation method for patients diagnosed with cancer.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched. Included were randomized controlled trials and observational studies published after January 2000 with any smoking cessation intervention in patients with any type of cancer. Result of these studies were evaluated in a meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 18,780 papers were retrieved. After duplicate removal and exclusion based on title and abstract, 72 publications were left. After full text screening, 19 (randomized) controlled trials and 20 observational studies were included. The overall methodological quality of the included studies, rated by GRADE criteria, was very low. Two out of 21 combined intervention trials showed a statistical significant effect. Meta-analysis of 18 RCTs and 3 observational studies showed a significant benefit of combined modality interventions (OR 1.67, 95% C.I.: 1.24–2.26, p = 0.0008) and behavioural interventions (OR 1.33, 95% C.I.: 1.02 – 1.74, p = 0.03), but not for single modality pharmacological interventions (OR 1.11; 95% C.I.: 0.69–1.78, p = 0.66).