Long-Term Survivorship of Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Radical Intent

To investigate the recent trends in definitive management of esophageal cancer, the records of 138 consecutive patients treated with radical intent in a single institution between 1995 and 2003 were reviewed and analyzed. The median follow-up period was 5.7 years (range 1.1 to 10.4 years). Seventy-seven patients were treated with radiation therapy (RT) only and 61 with combined regimens (CRT), in which RT was combined with either radical surgery or chemotherapy, or both. The overall survival of the entire cohort was 32% over two years and 20% over five years. The survivorship in the RT group was 17% over two years and 5% over five years. In the CRT group, 51% and 35% survived over two and five years, respectively. From all the potential prognostic factors examined by univariate and multivariate analyses, only male sex and use of CRT were strongly associated with better survivorship. There was no significant difference in the outcomes among the different regimens of CRT. Survivorship was not affected by the location or histology of the tumour, clinical stage, dose of RT or use of endoluminal brachytherapy in addition to external beam RT. There was a greater tendency to use RT only more often in older patients, but patient age did not affect survivorship. The proportion of patients treated with CRT did not change significantly over the last versus the first four years of the observed period. Combined regimens are undoubtedly superior to RT as a single modality. The long-term survivorship of patients in a subgroup of our patients treated with combined modality protocols compared favourably with the previously reported results in the literature and specifically in prospective randomized trials. However, the optimal combined modality regimen is yet to be defined

Real world duration of curative intent breast, colorectal, non-small cell lung, and prostate cancer treatment

Background: Advances in curative treatment for breast, colorectal, NSCLC and prostate cancer have led to improvements in cancer survival. Cancer treatment and recovery time can vary depending on the recommended modalities and intensity of therapy. Our objective was to determine the current real world duration of curative treatments for the four common cancers. Methods: A retrospective review was completed of patients referred to BC Cancer from 2010 to 2016, ≤ 65 years old, newly diagnosed with stage I-III breast, colorectal, NSCLC or prostate cancer who received curative intent treatment. Information was collected on baseline characteristics, date of diagnosis, surgery, type, duration and intent of both radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Results: In total, 22,275 patients were included: 55.7% breast, 22.4% colorectal, 9.2% NSCLC, 12.7% prostate cancer. Stage I/II/III at diagnosis: breast 47.2/38.7/14.1%, colorectal 26.5/30.1/43.5%, NSCLC 46.5/18.1/35.4%, prostate 7.7/62.9/29.4%. Patients treated with definitive surgery only: breast 35.9%, colorectal 58%, NSCLC 52.2%, prostate 40.1%. The median duration of multimodality treatment was breast 24.6 weeks, colorectal 26.7 weeks, NSCLC 9.1 weeks, and prostate 6.0 weeks. Conclusions: Approximately half of patients who undergo curative cancer treatment require definitive radiotherapy or multimodality treatment. The median duration of therapy for the most commonly treated cancers ranged from 6.0–26.7 weeks. Multimodality curative treatment can be prolonged for selected cancers when accounting for the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy and recovery time between modalities.Other UBCNon UBCReviewedFacult

Correlating Quantitative Fecal Immunochemical Test Results with Neoplastic Findings on Colonoscopy in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: A Prospective Study

Background and Aims. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) recommends a fecal immunochemical test- (FIT-) positive predictive value (PPV) for all adenomas of ≥50%. We sought to assess FIT performance among average-risk participants of the British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP). Methods. From Nov-2013 to Dec-2014 consecutive participants of the BCCSP were assessed. Data was obtained from a prospectively collected database. A single quantitative FIT (NS-Plus, Alfresa Pharma Corporation, Japan) with a cut-off of ≥10 μg/g (≥50 ng/mL) was used. Results. 20,322 FIT-positive participants underwent CSPY. At a FIT cut-off of ≥10 μg/g (≥50 ng/mL) the PPV for all adenomas was 52.0%. Increasing the FIT cut-off to ≥20 μg/g (≥100 ng/mL) would increase the PPV for colorectal cancer (CRC) by 1.5% and for high-risk adenomas (HRAs) by 6.5% at a cost of missing 13.6% of CRCs and 32.4% of HRAs. Conclusions. As the NS-Plus FIT cut-off rises, the PPV for CRC and HRAs increases but at the cost of missed lesions. A cut-off of ≥10 μg/g (≥50 ng/mL) produces a PPV for all adenomas exceeding national recommendations. Health authorities need to take into consideration endoscopic resources when selecting a FIT positivity threshold

Surveillance after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: Outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness

Objective: To estimate outcomes and costs of surveillance strategies after treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Methods: A hypothetical cohort of women was evaluated after treatment for CIN 2 or 3 using a Markov model incorporating data from a large study of women treated for CIN, systematic reviews of test accuracy, and individual preferences. Surveillance strategies included initial conventional or liquid-based cytology, human papillomavirus testing, or colposcopy 6 months after treatment, followed by annual or triennial cytology. Estimated outcomes included CIN, cervical cancer, cervical cancer deaths, life expectancy, costs, cost per life-year, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Results: Conventional cytology at 6 and 12 months, followed by triennial cytology, was least costly. Compared with triennial cytology, annual cytology follow-up reduced expected cervical cancer deaths by 73% to 77% and had an average incremental cost per life-year gained of $69,000 to$81,000. For colposcopy followed by annual cytology, the incremental cost per life-year gained ranged from $70,000 to more than$1 million, depending on risk. Between-strategy differences in mean additional life expectancy per woman were less than 4 days; differences in mean incremental costs per woman were as high as $822. In the cost-utility analysis, colposcopy at 6 months followed by annual cytology had an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of less than$5,500. Human papillomavirus testing or liquid-based cytology added little to no improvement to life-expectancy with higher costs. Conclusion: Annual conventional cytology surveillance reduced cervical cancers and cancer deaths compared with triennial cytology. For high risk of recurrence, a strategy of colposcopy at 6 months increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology increased costs, but not effectiveness, compared with traditional approaches

Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: a population-based study, 2004-2007.

BACKGROUND: The authors consider whether differences in stage at diagnosis could explain the variation in lung cancer survival between six developed countries in 2004-2007. METHODS: Routinely collected population-based data were obtained on all adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with lung cancer in 2004-2007 and registered in regional and national cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Stage data for 57 352 patients were consolidated from various classification systems. Flexible parametric hazard models on the log cumulative scale were used to estimate net survival at 1 year and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Age-standardised 1-year net survival from non-small cell lung cancer ranged from 30% (UK) to 46% (Sweden). Patients in the UK and Denmark had lower survival than elsewhere, partly because of a more adverse stage distribution. However, there were also wide international differences in stage-specific survival. Net survival from TNM stage I non-small cell lung cancer was 16% lower in the UK than in Sweden, and for TNM stage IV disease survival was 10% lower. Similar patterns were found for small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There are comparability issues when using population-based data but, even given these constraints, this study shows that, while differences in stage at diagnosis explain some of the international variation in overall lung cancer survival, wide disparities in stage-specific survival exist, suggesting that other factors are also important such as differences in treatment. Stage should be included in international cancer survival studies and the comparability of population-based data should be improved

Stage at diagnosis and ovarian cancer survival: evidence from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.

OBJECTIVE: We investigate what role stage at diagnosis bears in international differences in ovarian cancer survival. METHODS: Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the UK were analysed for 20,073 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2004-07. We compare the stage distribution between countries and estimate stage-specific one-year net survival and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log cumulative excess hazard scale. RESULTS: One-year survival was 69% in the UK, 72% in Denmark and 74-75% elsewhere. In Denmark, 74% of patients were diagnosed with FIGO stages III-IV disease, compared to 60-70% elsewhere. International differences in survival were evident at each stage of disease; women in the UK had lower survival than in the other four countries for patients with FIGO stages III-IV disease (61.4% vs. 65.8-74.4%). International differences were widest for older women and for those with advanced stage or with no stage data. CONCLUSION: Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international variation in ovarian cancer survival, and a more adverse stage distribution contributes to comparatively low survival in Denmark. This could arise because of differences in tumour biology, staging procedures or diagnostic delay. Differences in survival also exist within each stage, as illustrated by lower survival for advanced disease in the UK, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment. Population-based data on cancer survival by stage are vital for cancer surveillance, and global consensus is needed to make stage data in cancer registries more consistent