An interdisciplinary rehabilitation program may be beneficial to patients with head and neck cancer after treatment, but its effects should be evaluated in a controlled trial.

Background: Cancer can affect many dimensions of a patient’s life, and in turn, it should be targeted using a multimodal approach. We tested the extent to which an interdisciplinary nutrition–rehabilitation program can improve the well-being of patients with advanced cancer. Methods: Between January 10, 2007, and September 29, 2010, 188 patients with advanced cancer enrolled in the 10–12-week program. Body weight, physical function, symptom severity, fatigue dimensions, distress level, coping ability, and overall quality of life were assessed at the start and end of the program. Results: Of the enrolled patients, 70% completed the program. Patients experienced strong improvements in the physical and activity dimensions of fatigue (effect sizes: 0.8–1.1). They also experienced moderate reductions in the severity of weakness, depression, nervousness, shortness of breath, and distress (effect sizes: 0.5–0.7), and moderate improvements in Six Minute Walk Test distance, maximal gait speed, coping ability, and quality of life (effect sizes: 0.5–0.7) Furthermore, 77% of patients either maintained or increased their body weight. Conclusions: Interdisciplinary nutrition–rehabilitation can be advantageous for patients with advanced cancer and should be considered an integrated part of standard palliative care.

Introduction. Smoking cessation integration within lung cancer screening programs is challenging. Currently, phone counselling is available across Canada for individuals referred by healthcare workers and by self-referral. We compared quit rates after phone counselling interventions between participants who self-refer, those referred by healthcare workers, and those referred by a lung cancer screening program. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study of participants referred to provincial smoking cessation quit line in contemporaneous cohorts: self-referred participants, healthcare worker referred, and those referred by a lung cancer screening program if they were still actively smoking at the time of first contact. Baseline, covariates (sociodemographic information, smoking history, and history of mental health disorder) and quit intentions (stage of change, readiness for change, previous use of quit programs, and previous quit attempts) were compared among the three cohorts. Our primary outcome was defined as self-reported 30-day abstinence rates at 6 months. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify whether group assignment was associated with higher quit rates. Results. Participants referred by a lung cancer screening program had low quit rates (12%, 95% CI: 5–19) at six months despite the use of phone counselling. Compared to patients who were self-referred to the smoking cessation phone helpline, individuals referred by a lung cancer screening program were much less likely to quit (adjusted OR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17–0.8), whereas those referred by healthcare workers were twice as likely to quit (adjusted OR 2.16 (1.3–3.58)) even after adjustment for differences in smoking intensity and quit intentions. Conclusions. Phone counselling alone has very limited benefit in a lung cancer screening program. Participants differ significantly from those who are otherwise referred by healthcare workers. This study underlines the importance of a dedicated and personalized tobacco treatment program within every lung cancer screening program. The program should incorporate best practices and encourage treatment regardless of readiness to quit.