Citations

Abstract Background Global incidence for brain tumors varies substantially without explanation. Studies correlating radon exposure and incidence are inconclusive. Particulate pollution has been linked to increased tumor incidence. Particulates may disrupt the blood-brain barrier allowing intracranial exposure to oncogenic radon. We investigated the relationship between exposure to residential radon, particulate pollution, and brain tumor incidence in the United States (US). Methods County-level median radon testing results and annual air quality index values were obtained and divided into tertiles. Counties without both values were excluded. Four groups of counties were generated: high particulate/high radon (high/high), high/low, low/high, and low/low. Using incidence data from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the US (provided by CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries and NCI’s SEER), annual age-adjusted incidence rates (AAAIRs) by group were generated by behavior. Incidence rate ratios were calculated to examine for significant differences (α = .05). Poisson regression accounting for possible confounders was conducted. Results Counties with available data included 83% of the US population. High/high exposure was significantly associated with increased AAAIR of all non-malignant tumors (up to 26% higher, including most meningiomas) even after accounting for potential confounders. An increased AAAIR was noted for all malignant tumors (up to 10% higher), including glioblastoma, but was negated after accounting for demographic/socioeconomic differences. Conclusions We present the first report suggesting increased non-malignant brain tumor incidence in regions with high particulate and radon exposure. These findings provide insight into unexplained variation in tumor incidence. Future studies are needed to validate these findings in other populations.

Background: Increased facility surgical treatment volume is sometimes associated with improved survival in patients with cancer; however, published studies evaluating volume are heterogeneous and disparate in their patient inclusion and definition of volume. The purpose of this work was to evaluate uniformly the impact of surgical facility volume on survival in patients with cancer. Methods: The National Cancer Database was searched for patients diagnosed in 2004 through 2013 with the 12 cancers most commonly treated surgically. Facilities were stratified by 4 categories using the overall population (low, intermediate, high, and very high), each including 25% of patients, and then stratified by each individual disease site. Five-year postsurgery survival was estimated using both the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding log-rank tests for group comparisons. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the effects of facility volume on 5-year postsurgery survival further, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: A total of 3,923,618 patients who underwent surgery were included from 1,139 facilities. Of these, 40.4% had breast cancer, 12.8% prostate cancer, and 10.0% colon cancer. Most patients were female (65.0%), White (86.4%), and privately insured (51.6%) with stage 0–III disease (64.8%). For all cancers, the risk of death for patients undergoing surgery at very high-volume facilities was 88% of that for those treated at low-volume facilities. Hazard ratios (HRs) were greatest (very high vs low volume) for cancer of the prostate (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.63–0.69), pancreas (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.71–0.78), and esophagus (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73–0.83), and for melanoma (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.78–0.84); differences were smallest for uterine and non–small cell lung cancers. Overall survival differences were greatest for cancers of the brain, pancreas, and esophagus. Conclusions: Patients treated surgically at higher-volume facilities consistently had improved overall survival compared with those treated at low-volume centers, although the magnitude of difference was cancer-specific.

Objectives: Metastatic cancer has historically been considered fatal; however, there is a paucity of evidence characterizing the epidemiology of incidence, treatment, and outcomes in these patients. Materials and Methods: Incidence rates, annual percent change (APC), descriptive epidemiological statistics, and odds ratios for survival were calculated using registry data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and the National Cancer Database (NCDB), 1998 to 2015. Results: There were a total of 1,055,860 patients with metastatic cancer. The most frequent primary cancers were lung (42.6%), colorectal (9.5%), and ovarian (5.5%). Metastatic lung and colorectal cancer incidence decreased, APC: −1.57 (P<0.001) and APC: −1.48 (P<0.001), respectively; metastatic pancreatic cancer incidence increased, APC: 0.62 (P=0.001). The use of local therapies decreased for almost all sites, and the use of systemic therapies increased across multiple sites: single-agent chemotherapy in kidney (2.54% increase/year), female breast (1.14% increase/year), and prostate cancer (1.08% increase/year); multiagent chemotherapy, most notably in pancreas (2.23% increase/year), uterus (1.81% increase/year), and colorectal cancer (1.54% increase/year). Increased utilization of immunotherapy was observed across the majority of sites, most notably in melanoma (2.14% increase/year). Patients diagnosed from 2006 to 2010 had 17.4% higher odds of surviving at least 60 months compared with 1998 to 2002. Conclusions: In this study, metastatic disease has been shown to have unique epidemiological patterns, and survival has improved. Continued research on metastatic disease is important in understanding and addressing the distinct health concerns of this population.

AbstractAlthough cancer is highly heterogeneous, all metastatic cancer is considered American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Stage IV disease. The purpose of this project was to redefine staging of metastatic cancer. Internal validation of nationally representative patient data from the National Cancer Database (n = 461 357; 2010‐2013), and external validation using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (n = 106 595; 2014‐2015) were assessed using the concordance index for evaluation of survival prediction. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for overall survival by considering identified phenotypes (latent classes) and other confounding variables. Latent class analysis was performed for phenotype identification, where Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and sample‐size‐adjusted BIC were used to select the optimal number of distinct clusters. Kappa coefficients assessed external cluster validation. Latent class analysis identified five metastatic phenotypes with differences in overall survival (P < .0001): (Stage IVA) nearly exclusive bone‐only metastases (n = 59 049, 12.8%; median survival 12.7 months; common in lung, breast and prostate cancers); (IVB) predominant lung metastases (n = 62 491, 13.5%; 11.4 months; common in breast, stomach, kidney, ovary, uterus, thyroid, cervix and soft tissue cancers); (IVC) predominant liver/lung metastases (n = 130 014, 28.2%; 7.0 months; common in colorectum, pancreatic, lung, esophagus and stomach cancers); (IVD) bone/liver/lung metastases predominant over brain (n = 61 004, 13.2%; 5.9 months; common in lung and breast cancers); and (IVE) brain/lung metastases predominant over bone/liver (n = 148 799, 32.3%; 5.7 months; lung cancer and melanoma). Long‐term survivors were identified, particularly in Stages IVA‐B. A pan‐cancer nomogram model to predict survival (STARS: site, tumor, age, race, sex) was created, validated and provides 13% better prognostication than AJCC: 1‐month concordance index of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66‐0.67) vs 0.61 (95% CI: 0.60‐0.61). STARS is simple, uses easily accessible variables, better prognosticates survival outcomes and provides a platform to develop novel metastasis‐directed clinical trials.

Abstract Background We hypothesized that the addition of receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (RTKis, e.g., lapatinib, erlotinib, cetuximab, bevacizumab, panitumumab) to radiotherapy-based treatment for solid tumors does not increase overall survival but may increase toxicity. Methods Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study Design; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology methods were used to identify prospective randomized studies including patients with solid tumor cancers treated with radiotherapy with or without RTKis. Extracted variables included use of radiotherapy vs chemoradiotherapy, RTKi type (antibody vs small molecule), outcomes, and toxicities. The primary endpoint was overall survival; the secondary endpoint was grade 3+ toxicity. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each outcome measure. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results A total of 405 studies met the initial search criteria, of which 13 prospective randomized trials of radiotherapy with or without RTKi met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 5678 patients. The trials included cancers of the head and neck (6 trials, 3295 patients), esophagus (3 trials, 762 patients), lung (2 trials, 550 patients), and brain (2 trials, 1542 patients). Three studies evaluated a small molecule and radiotherapy in 949 patients, and 10 studies evaluated antibodies and radiotherapy in 4729 patients. The addition of RTKis to radiotherapy-based treatment did not improve overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval = 0.90 to 1.15, P = .76) but increased grade 3+ toxicity (relative risk = 1.18, 95% confidence interval = 1.06 to 1.33, P = .009). Conclusions The addition of RTKis to radiotherapy does not improve survival and worsens toxicity.