Methodological issues in estimating survival in patients with multiple primary cancers: an application to women with breast cancer as a first tumour

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comparing survival of patients with a single tumour and patients with multiple primaries poses different methodological problems. In population based studies, where we cannot rely on detailed clinical information, the issue is disentangling the share of survival probability from the first and second cancer, and their compounded effect. We examined three hypotheses: A) the survival probability since the first tumour does not change with the occurrence of a second tumour; B) the probability of surviving a tumour does not change with the presence of a previous primary; C) the probabilities of surviving two subsequent primary tumours are independent (additivity hypothesis on mortality rates).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied the survival probabilities modelling mortality rates according to hypotheses A), B) and C). Mortality rates were calculated using Aalen-Johansen estimators which allowed to discount for the lag-time survival before developing a second tumour. We applied this approach to a cohort of 436 women with breast cancer (BC) and a subsequent tumour in the resident population of Turin, Italy, between 1985 and 2002.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We presented our results in term of a Standardised Mortality Ratio calculated (<it>SMR</it>_<it>AJ</it>) after 10 years of follow-up. For hypothesis A we observed a significant excess mortality of 2.21 (95% C.I. 1.94 – 2.45). Concerning hypothesis B we found a not significant <it>SMR</it>_{<it>AJ </it>}of 0.98 (95% C.I. 0.87 – 1.10). The additivity hypothesis (C) was not confirmed as it overestimated the risk of death, in fact <it>SMRs</it>_{<it>AJ </it>}were all below 1: 0.75 (95% C.I. 0.66 – 0.84) for BC and all subsequent cancers, 0.72 (95% C.I. 0.55 – 0.94) for BC and colon-rectum cancer, 0.76 (95% C.I. 0.48 – 1.14) for BC and corpus uteri cancer (not significant).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This method proved to be useful in disentangling the effect of different subsequent cancers on mortality. In our application it shows a worse long-term mortality for women with two cancers than that with BC only. However, the increase in mortality was lower than expected under the additivity assumption.</p

Second primary cancer risk - the impact of applying different definitions of multiple primaries: results from a retrospective population-based cancer registry study

Background: There is evidence that cancer survivors are at increased risk of second primary cancers. Changes in the prevalence of risk factors and diagnostic techniques may have affected more recent risks.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Methods: We examined the incidence of second primary cancer among adults in the West of Scotland, UK, diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2004 (n = 57,393). We used National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results and International Agency for Research on Cancer definitions of multiple primary cancers and estimated indirectly standardised incidence ratios (SIR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Results: There was a high incidence of cancer during the first 60 days following diagnosis (SIR = 2.36, 95% CI = 2.12 to 2.63). When this period was excluded the risk was not raised, but it was high for some patient groups; in particular women aged &#60;50 years with breast cancer (SIR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.58 to 2.78), patients with bladder (SIR = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.67) and head &#38; neck (SIR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.67 to 2.21) cancer. Head &#38; neck cancer patients had increased risks of lung cancer (SIR = 3.75, 95% CI = 3.01 to 4.62), oesophageal (SIR = 4.62, 95% CI = 2.73 to 7.29) and other head &#38; neck tumours (SIR = 6.10, 95% CI = 4.17 to 8.61). Patients with bladder cancer had raised risks of lung (SIR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.62 to 2.88) and prostate (SIR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.72 to 3.30) cancer.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Conclusions: Relative risks of second primary cancers may be smaller than previously reported. Premenopausal women with breast cancer and patients with malignant melanomas, bladder and head &#38; neck cancers may benefit from increased surveillance and advice to avoid known risk factors

Multiple primary tumours: incidence estimation in the presence of competing risks

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Estimating the risk of developing subsequent primary tumours in a population is difficult since the occurrence probability is conditioned to the survival probability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We proposed to apply Markov models studying the transition intensities from first to second tumour with the Aalen-Johansen (AJ) estimators, as usually done in competing risk models. In a simulation study we applied the proposed method in different settings with constant or varying underlying intensities and applying age standardisation. In addition, we illustrated the method with data on breast cancer from the Piedmont Cancer Registry.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The simulation study showed that the person-years approach led to a sensibly wider bias than the AJ estimators. The largest bias was observed assuming constantly increasing incidence rates. However, this situation is rather uncommon dealing with subsequent tumours incidence. In 9233 cases with breast cancer occurred in women resident in Turin, Italy, between 1985 and 1998 we observed a significant increased risk of 1.91 for subsequent cancer of corpus uteri, estimated with the age-standardised Aalen-Johansen incidence ratio (AJ-IR^stand), and a significant increased risk of 1.29 for cancer possibly related to the radiotherapy of breast cancer. The peak of occurrence of those cancers was observed after 8 years of follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The increased risk of a cancer of the corpus uteri, also observed in other studies, is usually interpreted as the common shared risk factors such as low parity, early menarche and late onset of menopause. We also grouped together those cancers possibly associated to a previous local radiotherapy: the cumulative risk at 14 years is still not significant, however the AJ estimators showed a significant risk peak between the eighth and the ninth year. Finally, the proposed approach has been shown to be reliable and informative under several aspects. It allowed for a correct estimation of the risk, and for investigating the time trend of the subsequent cancer occurrence.</p

Population-based cancer survival in the United States: Data, quality control, and statistical methods.

BACKGROUND: Robust comparisons of population-based cancer survival estimates require tight adherence to the study protocol, standardized quality control, appropriate life tables of background mortality, and centralized analysis. The CONCORD program established worldwide surveillance of population-based cancer survival in 2015, analyzing individual data on 26 million patients (including 10 million US patients) diagnosed between 1995 and 2009 with 1 of 10 common malignancies. METHODS: In this Cancer supplement, we analyzed data from 37 state cancer registries that participated in the second cycle of the CONCORD program (CONCORD-2), covering approximately 80% of the US population. Data quality checks were performed in 3 consecutive phases: protocol adherence, exclusions, and editorial checks. One-, 3-, and 5-year age-standardized net survival was estimated using the Pohar Perme estimator and state- and race-specific life tables of all-cause mortality for each year. The cohort approach was adopted for patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2003, and the complete approach for patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2009. RESULTS: Articles in this supplement report population coverage, data quality indicators, and age-standardized 5-year net survival by state, race, and stage at diagnosis. Examples of tables, bar charts, and funnel plots are provided in this article. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based cancer survival is a key measure of the overall effectiveness of services in providing equitable health care. The high quality of US cancer registry data, 80% population coverage, and use of an unbiased net survival estimator ensure that the survival trends reported in this supplement are robustly comparable by race and state. The results can be used by policymakers to identify and address inequities in cancer survival in each state and for the United States nationally. Cancer 2017;123:4982-93. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA

Skeletal Plasmacytoma: Progression of disease and impact of local treatment; an analysis of SEER database

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous reports suggest an as yet unidentifiable subset of patients with plasmacytoma will progress to myeloma. The current study sought to establish the risk of developing myeloma and determine the prognostic factors affecting the progression of disease.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with plasmacytoma diagnosed between 1973 and 2005 were identified in the SEER database(1164 patients). Patient demographics and clinical characteristics, treatment(s), cause of death, and survival were extracted. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank, and Cox regression were used to analyze prognostic factors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The five year survival among patients initially diagnosed with plasmacytoma that later progressed to multiple myeloma and those initially diagnosed with multiple myeloma were almost identical (25% and 23%; respectively). Five year survival for patients with plasmacytoma that did not progress to multiple myeloma was significantly better (72%). Age > 60 years was the only factor that correlated with progression of disease (p = 0.027).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Plasmacytoma consists of two cohorts of patients with different overall survival; those patients that do not progress to systemic disease and those that develop myeloma. Age > 60 years is associated with disease progression. Identifying patients with systemic disease early in the treatment will permit aggressive and novel treatment strategies to be implemented.</p

The molecular and cellular origin of human prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed male malignancy. Despite compelling epidemiology, there are no definitive aetiological clues linking development to frequency. Pre-malignancies such as proliferative inflammatory atrophy (PIA) and prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) yield insights into the initiating events of prostate cancer, as they supply a background "field" for further transformation. An inflammatory aetiology, linked to recurrent prostatitis, and heterologous signalling from reactive stroma and infiltrating immune cells may result in cytokine addiction of cancer cells, including a tumour-initiating population also known as cancer stem cells (CSCs). In prostate tumours, the background mutational rate is rarely exceeded, but genetic change via profound sporadic chromosomal rearrangements results in copy number variations and aberrant gene expression. In cancer, dysfunctional differentiation is imposed upon the normal epithelial lineage, with disruption/disappearance of the basement membrane, loss of the contiguous basal cell layer and expansion of the luminal population. An initiating role for androgen receptor (AR) is attractive, due to the luminal phenotype of the tumours, but alternatively a pool of CSCs, which express little or no AR, has also been demonstrated. Indolent and aggressive tumours may also arise from different stem or progenitor cells. Castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) remains the inevitable final stage of disease following treatment. Time-limited effectiveness of second-generation anti-androgens, and the appearance of an AR-neuroendocrine phenotype imply that metastatic disease is reliant upon the plasticity of the CSC population, and indeed CSC gene expression profiles are most closely related to those identified in CRPCs

Yields of the fields experiments 1997

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:9418.370(1997) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Yields of the field experiments 1998

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:9418.370(1998) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Integrated approach to crop research Rothamsted; Long Ashton; Broom's Barn

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:4358.860(1997) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo