28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Risk of Second Primary Malignancies Among Cancer Survivors in the United States, 1992 Through 2008

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND:

          In the current study, the authors attempted to describe the incidence, most common sites, and mortality of second primary malignancies among survivors of common cancers.

          METHODS:

          The authors identified patients aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with a primary malignancy from the 10 most common cancer sites (prostate, breast, lung, colon, rectum, bladder, uterus, kidney, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma) between 1992 and 2008 from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Factors associated with the incidence of second primary malignancies were explored using bivariable and multivariable models, and mortality attributable to first and second primary malignancies was examined.

          RESULTS:

          A cohort of 2,116,163 patients was identified, 170,865 of whom (8.1%) developed a second primary malignancy. Survivors of bladder cancer had the highest risk of developing a second cancer. In a multivariable model controlling for age, race, tumor grade, stage of disease, marital status, educational level, and income, a history of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (hazard ratios of 2.70 and 2.88, respectively, for men and women) and bladder cancer (hazard ratios of 1.88 and 1.66, respectively, for men and women) predicted the highest risk of developing a second cancer. For patients with 2 incident cancers, 13% died of their initial cancer, but greater than one-half (55%) died of their second primary malignancy. Lung cancer was the cause of death in 12% of patients with 2 incident cancers.

          CONCLUSIONS:

          Nearly 1 in 12 patients diagnosed with a common cancer developed a second malignancy, the most common of which was lung cancer. Greater than one-half of patients with 2 incident cancers died of their secondary malignancy. The findings from the current study may inform care strategies among cancer survivors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer survivors in the United States: prevalence across the survivorship trajectory and implications for care.

          Cancer survivors represent a growing population, heterogeneous in their need for medical care, psychosocial support, and practical assistance. To inform survivorship research and practice, this manuscript will describe the prevalent population of cancer survivors in terms of overall numbers and prevalence by cancer site and time since diagnosis. Incidence and survival data from 1975-2007 were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program and population projections from the United States Census Bureau. Cancer prevalence for 2012 and beyond was estimated using the Prevalence Incidence Approach Model, assuming constant future incidence and survival trends but dynamic projections of the U.S. population. As of January 1, 2012, approximately 13.7 million cancer survivors were living in the United States with prevalence projected to approach 18 million by 2022. Sixty-four percent of this population have survived 5 years or more; 40% have survived 10 years or more; and 15% have survived 20 years or more after diagnosis. Over the next decade, the number of people who have lived 5 years or more after their cancer diagnosis is projected to increase approximately 37% to 11.9 million. A coordinated agenda for research and practice is needed to address cancer survivors' long-term medical, psychosocial, and practical needs across the survivorship trajectory. Prevalence estimates for cancer survivors across the survivorship trajectory will inform the national research agenda as well as future projections about the health service needs of this population.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Second cancers among 40,576 testicular cancer patients: focus on long-term survivors.

            Although second primary cancers are a leading cause of death among men with testicular cancer, few studies have quantified risks among long-term survivors. Within 14 population-based tumor registries in Europe and North America (1943-2001), we identified 40,576 1-year survivors of testicular cancer and ascertained data on any new incident solid tumors among these patients. We used Poisson regression analysis to model relative risks (RRs) and excess absolute risks (EARs) of second solid cancers. All statistical tests were two-sided. A total of 2,285 second solid cancers were reported in the cohort. The relative risk and EAR decreased with increasing age at testicular cancer diagnosis (P < .001); the EAR increased with attained age (P < .001) but the excess RR decreased. Among 10-year survivors diagnosed with testicular cancer at age 35 years, the risk of developing a second solid tumor was increased (RR = 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8 to 2.1). Risk remained statistically significantly elevated for 35 years (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.0; P < .001). We observed statistically significantly elevated risks, for the first time, for cancers of the pleura (malignant mesothelioma; RR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.7 to 5.9) and esophagus (RR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.6). Cancers of the lung (RR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2 to 1.7), colon (RR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.7 to 2.5), bladder (RR = 2.7, 95% CI = 2.2 to 3.1), pancreas (RR = 3.6, 95% CI = 2.8 to 4.6), and stomach (RR = 4.0, 95% CI = 3.2 to 4.8) accounted for almost 60% of the total excess. Overall patterns were similar for seminoma and nonseminoma patients, with lower risks observed for nonseminoma patients treated after 1975. Statistically significantly increased risks of solid cancers were observed among patients treated with radiotherapy alone (RR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.9 to 2.2), chemotherapy alone (RR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3 to 2.5), and both (RR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.9 to 4.2). For patients diagnosed with seminomas or nonseminomatous tumors at age 35 years, cumulative risks of solid cancer 40 years later (i.e., to age 75 years) were 36% and 31%, respectively, compared with 23% for the general population. Testicular cancer survivors are at statistically significantly increased risk of solid tumors for at least 35 years after treatment. Young patients may experience high levels of risk as they reach older ages. The statistically significantly increased risk of malignant mesothelioma in testicular cancer survivors has, to our knowledge, not been observed previously in a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography: a systematic review to update the US Preventive services task force recommendation.

              Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Because early-stage lung cancer is associated with lower mortality than late-stage disease, early detection and treatment may be beneficial. To update the 2004 review of screening for lung cancer for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, focusing on screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). MEDLINE (2000 to 31 May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2012), Scopus, and reference lists. English-language randomized, controlled trials or cohort studies that evaluated LDCT screening for lung cancer. One reviewer extracted study data about participants, design, analysis, follow-up, and results, and a second reviewer checked extractions. Two reviewers rated study quality using established criteria. Four trials reported results of LDCT screening among patients with smoking exposure. One large good-quality trial reported that screening was associated with significant reductions in lung cancer (20%) and all-cause (6.7%) mortality. Three small European trials showed no benefit of screening. Harms included radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, and a high rate of false-positive findings that typically were resolved with further imaging. Smoking cessation was not affected. Incidental findings were common. Three trials were underpowered and of insufficient duration to evaluate screening effectiveness. Overdiagnosis, an important harm of screening, is of uncertain magnitude. No studies reported results in women or minority populations. Strong evidence shows that LDCT screening can reduce lung cancer and all-cause mortality. The harms associated with screening must be balanced with the benefits. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                0374236
                2771
                Cancer
                Cancer
                Cancer
                0008-543X
                1097-0142
                22 September 2018
                05 July 2016
                October 2016
                17 October 2018
                : 122
                : 19
                : 3075-3086
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
                [2 ]Department of Urology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
                [3 ]Department of Urology, Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia
                [4 ]Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
                [5 ]Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
                [6 ]Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
                [7 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
                Author notes

                AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

                Nicholas M. Donin: Investigation, conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, writing–original draft, writingreview and editing, and visualization. Christopher P. Filson: Investigation, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing–original draft, and visualization. Alexandra Drakaki: Writing–review and editing and supervision. Hung-Jui Tan: Writing–review and editing and supervision. Alex Castillo: Investigation, resources, conceptualization, software, validation, formal analysis, data curation, writing–review and editing, and visualization. Lorna Kwan: Investigation, resources, conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, data curation, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, visualization, and supervision. Mark S. Litwin: Writing–review and editing and supervision. Karim Chamie: Investigation, conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing, visualization, and supervision. Nicholas M. Donin and Karim Chamie take ultimate responsibility for the integrity of the content contained herein.

                Corresponding author: Karim Chamie, MD, MSHS, Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, 300 Stein Plaza, 3rd Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90095; Fax: (310) 794-3513; KChamie@ 123456mednet.ucla.edu
                Article
                PMC6192520 PMC6192520 6192520 nihpa989645
                10.1002/cncr.30164
                6192520
                27377470
                73ad1b96-a4fc-401b-90e8-79a84306815f
                History
                Categories
                Article

                survivors,epidemiology,screening,second primary neoplasms,Surveillance,Epidemiology,and End Results (SEER) program

                Comments

                Comment on this article