Pooled Analysis of Meningioma Risk Following Treatment for Childhood Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Meningioma is the most common subsequent neoplasm following cranial irradiation among survivors of childhood cancer, but there are still uncertainties regarding the magnitude of the radiation dose-response association, potential modifiers of radiation risks, and the role of chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate meningioma risk in survivors of childhood cancer following radiotherapy and chemotherapy and identify possible modifying factors of radiation-associated risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This international case-control study pooled data from 4 nested case-control studies of survivors of childhood cancer diagnosed between 1942 and 2000, followed through 2016. Cases were defined as participants diagnosed with a subsequent meningioma. Controls were matched to cases based on sex, age at first cancer diagnosis, and duration of follow-up. Data were analyzed from July 2019 to June 2022. EXPOSURES: Radiation dose (Gy) to the meningioma site and cumulative chemotherapy doses, including intrathecal and systemic methotrexate doses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was subsequent meningioma, assessed using odds ratios (ORs) and excess odds ratios per gray (EOR/Gy). RESULTS: The analysis included 273 survivors of childhood cancer who developed meningioma (cases) and 738 survivors who did not (controls), with a total of 1011 individuals (median [IQR] age at first cancer diagnosis 5.0 [3.0-9.2] years; 599 [59.2%] female). Median (IQR) time since first cancer was 21.5 (15.0-27.0) years. Increasing radiation dose was associated with increased risk of meningioma (EOR/Gy, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.62-3.61), and there was no evidence of departure from linearity (P = .90). Compared with survivors who were not exposed to radiation therapy, those who received doses of 24 Gy or more had more than 30-fold higher odds of meningioma (OR, 33.66; 95% CI, 14.10-80.31). The radiation dose-response association was significantly lower among patients treated at age 10 years or older compared with those treated before age 10 years (EOR/Gy, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.18-1.91 vs 2.20; 95% CI, 0.87-6.31; P for heterogeneity = .03). Risk associated with radiation remained significantly elevated 30 years after exposure (EOR/Gy, 3.76; 95% CI, 0.77-29.15). We found an increased risk of meningioma among children who had received methotrexate (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.56-7.57), but no evidence of a dose-response association or interaction with radiation dose. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that the meninges are highly radiosensitive, especially for children treated before age 10 years. These results support the reduction in whole-brain irradiation over recent decades and the prioritization of approaches that limit radiation exposure in healthy tissue for children. The persistence of elevated risks of meningiomas for 30 years after cranial radiotherapy could help inform surveillance guidelines

Health Disparities Between Appalachian and Non-Appalachian Counties in Virginia USA

The examination of health disparities among people within Appalachian counties compared to people living in other counties is needed to find ways to strategically target improvements in community health in the United States of America (USA). Methods: A telephone survey of a random sample of adults living in households within communities of all counties of the state of Virginia (VA) in the USA was conducted. Findings: Health status was poorer among those in communities within Appalachian counties in VA and health insurance did not make a difference. Health perception was significantly worse in residents within communities in Appalachian counties compared to non-Appalachian community residents (30.5 vs. 17.4% rated their health status as poor/fair), and was worse even among those with no chronic diseases. Within communities in Appalachian counties, black residents report significantly better health perception than do white residents. Conclusion: Residents living in communities in Appalachian counties in VA are not receiving adequate health care, even among those with health insurance. More research with a larger ethnic minority sample is needed to investigate the racial/ethnic disparities in self-reported health and health care utilization within communities

Temporal trends in the incidence of malignant and non-malignant primary brain and central nervous system tumors by method of diagnosis in England, 1993-2017

Background Several studies report increasing incidence of primary CNS tumors. The reasons for this are unclear. Methods Data on all 188,340 individuals diagnosed with a primary CNS tumor in England (1993-2017) were obtained from the National Cancer Registry. Data on all CT head and MRI brain scans in England (2013-2017) were obtained from NHS Digital. Age-sex-standardized annual incidence rates per 100,000 population (ASR) were calculated by calendar year, tumor behavior, tumor location and method of diagnosis. Temporal trends were quantified using average annual percent change (AAPC). Results The ASR for all CNS tumors increased from 13.0 in 1993 to 18.6 in 2017 (AAPC: 1.5%, 95% CI: 1.3, 1.7). The ASR for malignant tumors (52% overall) remained stable (AAPC: +0.5%, 95% CI: -0.2, 1.3), while benign tumors (37% overall) increased (AAPC: +2.6%, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.0). Among the 66% of benign tumors that were microscopically confirmed, the ASR increased modestly (AAPC: 1.3%, 95% CI: 0.5, 2.1). However, among the 25% of benign tumors that were radiographically confirmed, the ASR increased substantially (AAPC: 10.2%, 95% CI: 7.9, 12.5), principally driven by large increases in those aged 65+. The rate of CT head scans in Accident & Emergency (A&E) increased during 2013-2017, with especially large increases in 65-84 and 85+ year olds (AAPCs: 18.4% and 22.5%). Conclusion Increases in CNS tumor incidence in England are largely attributable to greater detection of benign tumors. This could be the result of increasing use of neuroimaging, particularly CT head scans in A&E in people aged 65+

Serious disease risk among patients with unexpected weight loss: a matched cohort of over 70 000 primary care presentations

Background Unexpected weight loss (UWL) in patients consulting in primary care presents dilemmas for management because of the broad differential diagnoses associated with UWL. Research on the risks of serious disease among patients with UWL to date has largely taken place in secondary care, limiting generalizability to primary care patients. In this study, we use a large matched cohort study to estimate the risks of 12 serious diseases among patients presenting to primary care with UWL where this was recorded, stratified by age and sex, in order to inform a rational clinical approach to patients presenting with UWL. Methods This was a retrospective matched cohort study using electronic health records (EHRs) from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Each patient with UWL (ascertained from EHR coding) was matched to five patients without UWL and followed until the earliest of a diagnosis of the serious disease, date of death, exit from the CPRD database, or end of the study. Observed absolute risks of the 12 serious diseases were estimated as probabilities, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models. Results Between 2000 and 2012, 70 193 patients in CPRD had at least one record of UWL and were matched with 295 579 patients without UWL. Patients with UWL had significantly higher risk of nearly all serious diseases examined compared with patients without. HRs ranged from 1.43 for congestive heart failure [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27–1.62] to 9.70 for malabsorption (95% CI: 6.81–13.82). The absolute risks of any given serious disease were relatively low ( Conclusions This analysis provides new evidence to patients and clinicians about the risks of serious disease among patients presenting with UWL in primary care. Depending on age and sex, the results suggest that workup for UWL should include screening for diabetes, thyroid dysfunction, depression, and dementia. If performed in a timely manner, this workup could be used to triage patients eligible for cancer pathway referral.</p

Combining faecal immunochemical testing with blood test results for colorectal cancer risk stratification: a consecutive cohort of 16,604 patients presenting to primary care

Background Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are used to triage primary care patients with symptoms that could be caused by colorectal cancer for referral to colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine whether combining FIT with routine blood test results could improve the performance of FIT in the primary care setting. Methods Results of all consecutive FITs requested by primary care providers between March 2017 and December 2020 were retrieved from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Demographic factors (age, sex), reason for referral, and results of blood tests within 90 days were also retrieved. Patients were followed up for incident colorectal cancer in linked hospital records. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of FIT alone, FIT paired with blood test results, and several multivariable FIT models, were compared. Results One hundred thirty-nine colorectal cancers were diagnosed (0.8%). Sensitivity and specificity of FIT alone at a threshold of 10 μg Hb/g were 92.1 and 91.5% respectively. Compared to FIT alone, blood test results did not improve the performance of FIT. Pairing blood test results with FIT increased specificity but decreased sensitivity. Multivariable models including blood tests performed similarly to FIT alone. Conclusions FIT is a highly sensitive tool for identifying higher risk individuals presenting to primary care with lower risk symptoms. Combining blood test results with FIT does not appear to lead to better discrimination for colorectal cancer than using FIT alone