A Systematic Review and Scoping Analysis of Smoking Cessation after a Urological Cancer Diagnosis

Smoking cessation after a urological cancer diagnosis significantly benefits patients. It is not well known how often patients quit after diagnosis or how urologists intervene to support patients' smoking cessation efforts. We examined rates of smoking cessation after diagnosis among patients with urological cancers, and assessed how often patients are given advice and support to quit smoking in the urology setting.

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted of the available studies on smoking cessation after a urological cancer diagnosis during April 2020 by a trained medical librarian using the MEDLINE®, PsycInfo®, Embase® and Cochrane Central databases. Studies were included based on 3 independent reviews and if they met a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. In total, 2,568 records were identified, 31 of which were included for final analysis.

Four studies (587 patients) reported outcomes related to the prospective implementation of a smoking cessation program with patient-level quit rates ranging from 3.2% to 47.3%. A total of 21 studies (3,669 patients) reported outcomes of passive (no directed, active intervention) smoking cessation after the diagnosis of a urological cancer with widely varying quit rates. In general, the quality of included studies was poor. There was no standardization of the measurement or timing of outcomes, and few studies included validated survey instruments or biochemical confirmation of cessation. A total of 17 studies included data on whether patients received advice to quit smoking after diagnosis. The proportion of patients in each study who were told to quit ranged from 2.8% to 78.3%.

There are few smoking cessation interventions that have been prospectively implemented and reported in the urology literature, and studies on quit rates after diagnosis are limited. The paucity of quality data and lack of smoking cessation interventions being used in routine urological oncology care underscores the need for more rigorous study and implementation of evidence-based practices in this area.