Cancer最新文献

Introduction: Despite increasing numbers of working-age cancer survivors, evidence on their future work-related circumstances is limited. This study examined their future sick leave, disability pension, and unemployment benefits compared to matched cancer-free individuals.

Methods: A matched cohort study was conducted using nationwide Swedish registers. In total, 94,411 individuals aged 25 to 59 years when diagnosed with incident cancer in 2001-2012 and who returned to work after cancer were compared with their matched cancer-free individuals (N = 354,814). Follow-up started from the year before cancer diagnosis and continued up to 14 years. Generalized estimating equations were used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR) and odds ratios for the difference between cancer survivors and matched cancer-free individuals.

Results: Compared with cancer-free individuals, cancer survivors had six times higher sick-leave days per year after cancer (IRR 6.25 [95% CI, 5.97-6.54] for men; IRR, 5.51 [5.39-5.64] for women). This higher number of sick-leave days declined over time but a two-fold difference persisted. An approximate 1.5 times higher risk of receiving disability pension remained during follow-up. The unemployment days tended to be lower for cancer survivors (IRR, 0.84 [0.75-0.94] for men; IRR, 0.91 [0.86-0.96] for women). Risk of sick leave and disability pension was higher among those with leukemia, colorectal, and breast cancer than skin and genitourinary cancers.

Conclusions: Cancer survivors who returned to work experienced a high and persisting sick leave and disability pension for over a decade. Prolonged receipt of a high amount of benefits may have long-term adverse impacts on financial circumstances; more knowledge to promote the environment that encourages returning to and remaining in work is needed.

Background: The prevalence of suboptimal self-rated health (SRH) and its association with subsequent all-cause and cause-specific mortality after blood or marrow transplantation (BMT) were examined.

Methods: Study participants were drawn from the multicenter Blood or Marrow Transplant Survivor Study, and included patients who were transplanted between 1974 and 2014 and had survived ≥2 years after BMT. Participants (aged ≥18 years) completed a survey at a median of 9 years from BMT, and were followed for a median of 5.6 years after survey completion. Survivors provided information on sociodemographic factors, chronic health conditions, health behaviors, and SRH (a single-item measure rated as excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor; excellent, very good, and good SRH were classified as good SRH, and fair and poor were classified as suboptimal SRH). The National Death Index Plus and Accurint databases and medical records provided vital status through December 2021.

Results: Of 3739 participants, 784 died after survey completion (21%). Overall, 879 BMT survivors (23.5%) reported suboptimal SRH. Pain, low socioeconomic status, psychological distress, lack of exercise, severe/life-threatening chronic health conditions, post-BMT relapse, obesity, smoking, and male sex were associated with suboptimal SRH. BMT survivors who reported suboptimal SRH had a 1.9-fold increased risk of all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.3), 1.8-fold increased risk of recurrence-related mortality (95% CI, 1.4-2.5), and 1.9-fold increased risk of non-recurrence-related mortality (95% CI, 1.4-2.4) compared to those who reported good SRH.

Conclusions: This single-item measure could help identify vulnerable subpopulations who could benefit from interventions to mitigate the risk for subsequent mortality.

Background: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed Americans aged 19-25 years to remain on their parents' health insurance plans until age 26 years (the Dependent Care Expansion [DCE]). Have those with cancer diagnoses benefited?

Methods: The ACE DCE 7-year age range of 19-25 years was compared for changes in cancer survival and mortality before and after enactment of the ACA with groups that were younger and older (in 7-year age spans: ages 12-18 and 26-32 years, respectively). Cancer death data for the entire United States were obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and relative survival data of patients who were diagnosed with cancer were obtained from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions representing 42%-44% of the country.

Results: Joinpoint analysis identified the DCE-eligible cohort as the only age group of the three groups evaluated that have had improvements in both cancer survival and death rate trends after ACA implementation and that 2010, the year the ACA was passed, was the inflection year for both survival and deaths. By 6 years, the relative survival after cancer diagnosis was 2.6 and 3.9 times greater in the DCE-eligible age group than in the younger and older control groups, respectively (both p < .001), and the cancer death rate in the DCE-eligible age group improved 2.1 and 1.5 times greater than in the younger and older control age groups, respectively (both p < .01).

Conclusions: During the first decade of the ACA, eligible young adults with cancer have had significantly improved survival and mortality. Additional policies expanding insurance coverage and enabling earlier cancer diagnosis among young adults are needed.

Plain language summary: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) Dependent Care Expansion (DCE) that began in the United States in 2011 allowed young adults aged 19-25 years to remain on their parents' health insurance plans until age 26 years. The survival rate at 6 years in young adult patients diagnosed with cancer was 2.6 to 3.9 times greater in the DCE-eligible age group compared with the younger and older age groups, and the rate of deaths from cancer improved 1.5 to 2.1 times more. During the first decade of the ACA, young adults with cancer who were in the eligible group had significantly longer survival and reduced deaths from cancer. Additional policies that expand insurance coverage and allow the diagnosis of cancer sooner are needed in young adults.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and dose-limiting chemotoxicity caused by oxaliplatin. This study investigated the relationship between dietary quality and the development of moderate and/or severe CIPN in colon cancer survivors using data from the Focus on Reducing Dose-Limiting Toxicities in Colon Cancer with Resistance Exercise trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03291951).

Methods: Diet quality was collected using a 127-item food-frequency questionnaire and was scored using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index-2010 (AHEI-2010). CIPN was assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events at each chemotherapy cycle. The association of dietary quality with time to the first moderate-to-severe (moderate-severe) or severe event of CIPN was estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. Only participants who received oxaliplatin were included in this analysis (n = 132).

Results: Seventy-four participants (56.1%) reported moderate-severe CIPN. Higher dietary quality was associated with a significantly decreased risk of moderate-severe CIPN (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.99) and severe CIPN (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98). Consumption of red and processed meat (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.07-2.83) and sugar-sweetened beverages (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10-1.59) was associated with an increased risk of moderate-severe CIPN. Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages also was associated with an increased risk of severe CIPN (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.14-2.18), whereas vegetable consumption was associated with a reduced risk of severe CIPN (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.73).

Conclusions: Among patients with colon cancer who received oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, higher baseline dietary quality was associated with a reduced risk of moderate-severe CIPN.

Background: The visceral adiposity index (VAI) is a marker of visceral fat accumulation and metabolic dysfunction, but there is limited evidence of its association with cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate associations between the VAI and both incident cancer at 23 sites and all-cause cancer.

Methods: In total, 385,477 participants (53.3% women; mean age, 56.3 years) from the UK Biobank prospective cohort were included in this study. The median follow-up was 8.2 years (interquartile range, 7.3-8.9 years). The VAI was calculated using formula the published by Amato et al. and was categorized into sex-specific tertiles. Twenty-four incident cancers were the outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were adjusted for sociodemographics, lifestyle factors, and multimorbidity counts.

Results: Over the follow-up period, 47,882 individuals developed cancer. In the fully adjusted models, the VAI was associated with a higher risk of six cancer sites. Individuals in the highest tertile, compared with those in the lowest tertile, had higher risks of uterine (hazard ratio [HR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-2.49), gallbladder (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.26-2.66), kidney (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.18-1.64), liver (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-1.56), colorectal (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24), and breast (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19) cancers and of all-cause cancer (HR, 1.05). There was no evidence of a nonlinear association between the VAI and cancer risk.

Conclusions: The VAI was associated with six cancer sites and with all-cause cancer. The prognostic and etiologic roles of visceral fat accumulation and dysfunction in cancer warrant further research.

Background: Health insurance coverage is critical for ensuring access to recommended health care in the United States. This study investigated the associations of health insurance coverage disruptions, also known as coverage churn, and receipt of breast and colorectal cancer screening.

Methods: Adults who were age-eligible and younger than 65 years (range, 50-64 years) for breast (n = 17,128 women) and colorectal (n = 32,562 individuals) cancer screening were identified from 5 years of the National Health Interview Survey. Adults were categorized into five groups based on insurance type at survey (private, public, none) and prior coverage disruptions within the past year. Screening outcomes included: (1) ever-screened, (2) past-year screening, and (3) guideline-concordant screening. Separate multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the associations between insurance coverage disruptions and cancer screening.

Results: Among adults who had coverage at the time of the survey, 3.1% with private insurance and 6.5% with public insurance reported prior coverage disruptions. Individuals without health insurance coverage had the lowest level of screening. Among individuals who had private coverage, prior disruptions were associated with lower guideline-concordant screening in adjusted analyses (breast cancer screening: adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.89; colorectal cancer screening: aPR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.86); among those who had public coverage, prior disruptions were also associated with lower guideline-concordant breast cancer screening (aPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.89) and colorectal cancer screening (aPR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99).

Conclusions: Health insurance coverage disruptions were associated with lower past-year and guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening. The current findings underscore the importance of stable health insurance coverage to improve cancer screening and early detection when treatment is most effective.

Lung nodules are frequently detected on low-dose computed tomography scans performed for lung cancer screening and incidentally detected on imaging performed for other reasons. There is wide variability in how lung nodules are managed by general practitioners and subspecialists, with high rates of guideline-discordant care. This may be due in part to the level of evidence underlying current practice guideline recommendations (primarily based on findings from uncontrolled studies of diagnostic accuracy). The primary aims of lung nodule management are to minimize harms of diagnostic evaluations while expediting the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of lung cancer. Potentially useful tools such as lung cancer probability calculators, automated methods to identify patients with nodules in the electronic health record, and multidisciplinary team evaluation are often underused due to limited availability, accessibility, and/or provider knowledge. Finally, relatively little attention has been paid to identifying and reducing disparities among individuals with screening-detected or incidentally detected lung nodules. This contribution to the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable Strategic Plan aims to identify and describe these knowledge gaps in lung nodule management and propose recommendations to advance clinical practice and research. Major themes that are addressed include improving the quality of evidence supporting lung nodule evaluation guidelines, strategically leveraging information technology, and placing emphasis on equitable approaches to nodule management. The recommendations outlined in this strategic plan, when carried out through interdisciplinary efforts with a focus on health equity, ultimately aim to improve early detection and reduce the morbidity and mortality of lung cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Lung nodules may be identified on chest scans of individuals who undergo lung cancer screening (screening-detected nodules) or among patients for whom a scan was performed for another reason (incidental nodules). Although the vast majority of lung nodules are not lung cancer, it is important to have evidence-based, standardized approaches to the evaluation and management of a lung nodule. The primary aims of lung nodule management are to diagnose lung cancer while it is still in an early stage and to avoid unnecessary procedures and other harms.

Accurate staging improves lung cancer survival by increasing the chances of delivering stage-appropriate therapy. However, there is underutilization of, and variability in, the use of guideline-recommended diagnostic tests used to stage lung cancer. Consequently, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) convened the Triage for Appropriate Treatment Task Group-a multidisciplinary expert and stakeholder panel-to identify knowledge and/or resource gaps contributing to guideline-discordant staging and make recommendations to overcome these gaps. The task group determined the following: Gap 1: facilitators of and barriers to guideline-concordant staging are incompletely understood; Recommendation 1: identify facilitators of and barriers to guideline-concordant lung cancer staging; Gap 2: the level of evidence supporting staging algorithms is low-to-moderate; Recommendation 2: prioritize comparative-effectiveness studies evaluating lung cancer staging; Gap 3: guideline recommendations vary across professional societies; Recommendation 3: harmonize guideline recommendations across professional societies; Gap 4: existing databases do not contain sufficient information to measure guideline-concordant staging; Recommendation 4: augment existing databases with the information required to measure guideline-concordant staging; Gap 5: health systems do not have a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Recommendation 5: develop and implement a performance feedback mechanism for lung cancer staging; Gap 6: patients rarely self-advocate for guideline-concordant staging; Recommendation 6: increase opportunities for patient self-advocacy for guideline-concordant staging; and Gap 7: current health policies do not motivate guideline-concordant lung cancer staging; Recommendation 7: organize a representative working group under the ACS NLCRT that promotes policies that motivate guideline-concordant lung cancer staging. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Staging-determining the degree of cancer spread-is important because it helps clinicians choose the best cancer treatment. Receiving the best cancer treatment leads to the best possible patient outcomes. Practice guidelines are intended to help clinicians stage patients with lung cancer. However, lung cancer staging in the United States often varies from practice guideline recommendations. This report identifies seven opportunities to improve lung cancer staging.

Comprehensive biomarker testing is a crucial requirement for the optimal treatment of advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with emerging relevance in the adjuvant treatment setting. To advance its goal of ensuring optimal therapy for persons diagnosed with lung cancer, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (ACS NLCRT) held The Summit on Optimizing Lung Cancer Biomarkers in Practice in September 2020 to align its partners toward the goal of ensuring comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients with NSCLC. The ACS NLCRT's Strategic Plan for Advancing Comprehensive Biomarker Testing in NSCLC, a product of the summit, comprises actions to promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all eligible patients. The approach is multifaceted, including policy-level advocacy and the development and dissemination of targeted educational materials, clinical decision tools, and guides to patients, physicians, and payers aimed at ameliorating barriers to testing experienced by each of these groups. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The ACS NLCRT works to improve care for patients with lung cancer. The ACS NLCRT supports comprehensive biomarker testing as essential to determine treatment options for all eligible patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Many factors lead to some patients not receiving optimal biomarker testing. The ACS NLCRT held a collaborative summit and developed a strategic plan to achieve and promote comprehensive biomarker testing for all patients. These plans include developing educational materials and physician tools and advocating for national policies in support of biomarker testing.