Here is the design of a clinical trial:

Official Title: Contingency Management to Promote Smoking Abstinence in Cancer Patients

Included conditions:
- Smoking Cessation

Study Armgroups:
- {'label': 'Contingency Management', 'type': 'EXPERIMENTAL', 'interventionNames': ['Combination Product: Contingency Management']}
- {'label': 'Standard Care', 'type': 'ACTIVE_COMPARATOR', 'interventionNames': ['Combination Product: Standard Care']}

Interventions:
- {'type': 'COMBINATION_PRODUCT', 'name': 'Contingency Management', 'description': 'Participants will receive 3-6 counseling sessions, nicotine patches \\& lozenges, and monetary payment delivered contingent on abstinence verified by CO breath test.', 'armGroupLabels': ['Contingency Management']}
- {'type': 'COMBINATION_PRODUCT', 'name': 'Standard Care', 'description': 'Participants will receive 3-6 counseling sessions, nicotine patches \\& lozenges, and CO breath test monitoring.', 'armGroupLabels': ['Standard Care']}

Primary Outcomes:
- {'measure': 'Abstinence Rates as assessed by self-report for past 7 days, Carbon Monoxide Breath Monitoring and/or Anabasine testing', 'description': 'Abstinence will be defined by 7 days by self-report of no tobacco products, confirmed by CO breath test less than or equal to 4ppm and/or urine anabasine levels less than or equal to 2 ng/ml', 'timeFrame': 'Changes between the study intake appointment to day of surgery, up to five weeks apart'}

Please estimate the sample size based on the assumption: 
The study assumes an 80% power with a type 1 error rate of 5% to detect the difference between the groups. It also accounts for a between-visit, within-participant correlation of ρ=0.95 and an attrition rate of 20% between surgery and follow-up visits. No correction for multiple comparisons is applied.
Power and sample size
        We will test the primary hypothesis that rates of smoking abstinence will be significantly higher at the time of surgery in the CM group as compared with the MO group. In our previous pilot trial (n=40), 52% (11/21) of those who received CM were abstinent on the day of surgery compared with 16% (3/19) of the patients in MO (Î=36.6%; sÎ=13.3%; adjusted RR (95% CI) 3.3 (1.1 to 9.7)). It has been noted that parameter estimates from pilot trials tend to provide overly optimistic CIs around resulting estimates.60 61 Thus, we will assume a more conservative biologically confirmed 7-day PPA rate at the time of surgery of 20% in the MO group and an abstinence rate of 40% in the CM group (Î=20%). Based on these estimates, we will have 80% power with a type 1 error rate of 5% to detect the difference between those receiving CM (40%) and those receiving MO (20%) with 82 participants randomised to each of the two treatment groups (total n=164). Randomisation will be done at the participant level and stratified by site and treatment length, thus we expect very modest between site variation as compared with the total variance (~ Ï=0.01); however, due to sampling of participants across two distinct sites, we will inflate the necessary sample size to n=141 participants per group to account for this possible loss of power. This results in a total of N=282 randomised participants across both sites to maintain adequate power to detect the clinically meaningful difference stated.
        This proposed study size will also provide sufficient power to detect important difference in abstinence rates at the 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits between groups. In the pilot study, those who received the preoperative CM intervention for smoking abstinence, 43% (9/21) were abstinent at the 3-month follow-up visit compared with 5% (1/19) of the patients in the MO group (Î=37.6%; sÎ=12.0%; adjusted RR (95% CI) 8.6 (1.5 to 49.4)). Similar to hypothesis 1, we assume a conservative biologically confirmed 7-day PPA rate at the 3-month and 6-month follow-up visit of 10% based on pilot response data and U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the participants randomised to receive MO and an abstinence rate of 30% in the CM group. Accounting for a between-visit (two follow-up visits), within-participant correlation of Ï=0.95 and an attrition rate between surgery and the follow-up visits of 20%, the randomised sample of 282 participants will provide greater than 80% power to detect the stated difference in abstinence rates at the 3-month and 6 month follow-ups. All comparisons are powered using a two-sided type 1 error rate of 5% and no correction for multiple comparisons is applied to sample size estimates.