Survival of patients with colorectal carcinoma: effect of prior breast cancer

Prognosis of male lung cancer patients with urinary cancer: a study from a national population-based analysis

Lung cancer accounts for the most cancer-related deaths in the world. Our previous study suggested the improved survival of lung cancer patients, mainly female patients, with subsequent metachronous primary breast cancer. However, whether the survival advantages of the two primaries are associated with patients' sex and the specific breast cancer is unclear. Whether male lung cancer patients with another primary may encounter the same survival advantage as female patients is also uncertain. The uncertainty hinders these patients from the potential benefit of lung cancer clinical trial. A total of 343 male lung adenocarcinoma patients with subsequent bladder papillary transitional cell carcinoma (LCBC), 1539 lung adenocarcinoma patients with prior bladder papillary transitional cell carcinoma (BCLC), 1181 lung adenocarcinoma patients with subsequent prostate adenocarcinoma (LCPC), 7426 lung adenocarcinoma patients with prior prostate adenocarcinoma (PCLC), and patients with single bladder/prostate/lung (SLC) cancer were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. Patients were classified into simultaneous two primary cancer (sTPC), metachronous two primary cancer 1 (mTPC1), or mTPC2 groups when interval time between two cancers was within 6 months, between 7 and 60 months, or over 60 months, respectively. Propensity matching score program was executed to match the two primary cancers with single primary. Cox regression and competing risk regression were performed to identify confounders associated with all-cause and cancer-specific survival, respectively. The major cancer-related and non-cancer-related death in the two primaries were lung cancer and heart disease, respectively. Median overall survival times since lung primary of LCBC and SLC were 97 and 17 months, respectively, and incidence of all-cause and cancer-specific death in LCBC since lung malignancy was significantly lower (Coef. - 1.24, 95% CI - 1.49 to 0.99; SHR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). Among the categorized groups, prognosis values of sTPC and mTPC2 groups were not statically different from that of the matched single lung cancer, whereas increased overall survival time and decreased incidence of all-cause and cancer-specific death relative to the matched patients were observed in mTPC1 group (H.R 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.41; SHR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.47). Similar prognosis of LCPC relative to SLC was also observed. Furthermore, a generally improved survival relative to SLC was observed in PCLC (median survival times of PCLC and SLC were 17 and 12 months, respectively; Coef. - 0.32, 95% CI - 0.43 to 0.22; SHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.85), whereas prognosis of BCLC was similar to the matched ones. These results hinted that survival of lung cancer patients might vary with prior cancer history. Further analysis among groups with the two primaries suggested that advanced bladder cancer was not associated with prognosis of patients with LCBC and BCLC. On the contrary, advanced prostate cancer was associated with all-cause and cancer-specific death in patients with PCLC but not in patients with LCPC. Compared with patients with single lung cancer, male lung cancer patients with subsequent bladder/prostate primary over 6 months experienced generally improved survival. These results were similar to our previous study regarding female lung cancer patients with another breast primary. On the contrary, male lung cancer patients with prior primary malignancy encountered varied prognosis: improved survival relative to single lung primary was observed in lung cancer with prior prostate cancer, whereas prognosis of lung cancer with prior bladder cancer was not different. Therefore, great attention was required to characterize prognosis of lung cancer patients with another primary in advance, which was essential to eliminate the potential bias when these patients were included into the clinical trials.

Effect of prior malignancy on the prognosis of gastric cancer and somatic mutation

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors have a higher risk of developing secondary cancer, with previous studies showing heterogeneous effects of prior cancer on cancer survivors.

AIM

To describe the features and clinical significance of a prior malignancy in patients with gastric cancer (GC).

METHODS

We identified eligible patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, and compared the clinical features of GC patients with/without prior cancer. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox analyses were used to assess the prognostic impact of prior cancer on overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) outcomes. We also validated our results in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort and compared mutation patterns.

RESULTS

In the SEER dataset, of the 35492 patients newly diagnosed with GC between 2004 and 2011, 4,001 (11.3%) had at least one prior cancer, including 576 (1.62%) patients with multiple cancers. Patients with a prior cancer history tended to be elderly, with a more localized stage and less positive lymph nodes. The prostate (32%) was the most common initial cancer site. The median interval from initial cancer diagnosis to secondary GC was 68 mo. By using multivariable Cox analyses, we found that a prior cancer history was not significantly associated with OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.97–1.05). However, a prior cancer history was significantly associated with better GC-specific survival (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.78–0.85). In TCGA cohort, no significant difference in OS was observed for GC patients with or without prior cancer. Also, no significant differences in somatic mutations were observed between groups.

CONCLUSION

The prognosis of GC patients with previous diagnosis of cancer was not inferior to that of primary GC patients.

Survival analysis of patients with primary breast duct carcinoma and lung adenocarcinoma: a population-based study from SEER

The appeal to enroll patients with primary breast and lung cancer in clinical trials is increasing, but survival of these two primary cancers remains to be elucidated. This study analyzed the prognosis of primary breast duct carcinoma with subsequent lung adenocarcinoma (BCLA) and primary breast duct carcinoma with prior lung adenocarcinoma (LABC). Cohorts of 3,515 patients with BCLA and 654 patients with LABC were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Patients were classified into simultaneous two primary cancer (sTPC), metachronous two primary cancer (mTPC1), or mTPC2 groups when the interval times between breast and lung cancer were within 6 months, between 7 and 60 months, or over 60 months, respectively. The propensity score matching program (PSM) was applied to determine the survival of BCLA/LABC relative to single breast/lung cancer. Cox proportional hazard regression model and competing risk modes were performed to identify confounders associated with all-cause and cancer-specific death, respectively. Survival of patients with LABC/BCLA relative to single breast/lung cancer was accessed via median survival time. The survival of patients with BCLA/LABC was generally poor compared with the survival of those with single breast cancer. The PSM-estimated HR in the sTPC group with BCLA and in the mTPC1 and mTPC2 groups with LABC were 0.75 (95% CI 0.62–0.90), 0.52 (95% CI 0.27–0.98), and 0.36 (95% CI 0.20–0.65), respectively, whereas the SHRs were 0.80 (95% CI 0.66–0.97), 0.68 (95% CI 0.34–1.34), and 0.46 (95% CI 0.27–0.80), respectively, compared with those in the single lung cancer group. By contrast, the survival rates of the remaining patients did not differ. The median survival times since secondary malignancy were 42, 23, and 20 months in the sTPC, mTPC1, and mTPC2 groups with BCLA, respectively, and 18, 60, and 180 months in those with LABC, respectively. For patients with BCLA, the adjusted Cox regression suggested incidences of all-cause deaths in mTPC1group were statically higher than those in sTPC group, whereas the incidences of all-cause and cancer-specific death in the mTPC1 and mTPC2 groups were statistically lower than those in the sTPC group. The prognosis of patients with breast cancer and subsequent lung cancer of over 18 months was not significantly different than that of single lung cancer, which supported the profound appeal to increase the involvement of these two primary cancers in potential beneficial clinical trials. For patients with lung cancer and prior breast cancer of within 6 months and subsequent breast cancer of over 18 months, prognosis was improved relative to single lung cancer. Therefore, additional attention is needed to eliminate the potential bias may when these patients are recruited in the clinical trials.

Survival of patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer and with a history of previous cancer

Patients with previous cancer are often excluded from clinical trials despite limited evidence about their prognosis. We examined the effect of previous cancer on overall and colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific survival of patients newly diagnosed with CRC. This population-based cohort study from the U.S.A. included patients aged ≥66 years and diagnosed with CRC between 2005 and 2015 in linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data. We estimated the stage-specific effects of a previous cancer on overall survival using Cox regression and on CRC-specific survival using competing risk regression. We also examined the effect of previous cancer type, timing, and stage on overall survival. Of 112,769 patients, 14.1% were previously diagnosed with another cancer--commonly prostate (32.9%) or breast (19.4%) cancer, with many (47.1%) diagnosed <5 years of CRC. For all CRC stages except IV, in which there was no difference, patients with previous cancer (vs. without) had worse overall survival. However, patients with previous cancer had improved CRC-specific survival. Overall survival for those with stage 0-III CRC varied by previous cancer type, timing, and stage; for example, patients with previous melanoma had overall survival equivalent to those with no previous cancer. Our results indicate that, in general, CRC patients with previous cancer have worse overall survival but superior CRC-specific survival. Given their equivalent survival to those without previous cancer, patients with previous melanoma and those with stage IV CRC with any type of previous cancer should be eligible to participate in clinical trials.

Effect of prior cancer on survival of hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for clinical trial eligibility criteria

Background

Patients with cancer history are usually excluded from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) clinical trials. However, whether previous malignancy affects the oncological outcomes of HCC patients has not been fully assessed. This study aimed to evaluate whether prior cancer compromised the survival of HCC patients.

Methods

Patients with HCC were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database between 2004 and 2015, and then they were classified into groups with and without prior cancer. The Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression analysis were adopted to evaluate whether prior cancer impacted clinical outcomes after propensity score matching (PSM) adjusting baseline differences. Validation was performed in the cohort from our institution.

Results

We identified 2642 HCC patients with prior cancer. After PSM, the median overall survival (OS) time were 14.5 and 12.0 months respectively for groups with and without prior cancer. Prior cancer did not compromise prognosis in patients with HCC (p = 0.49). The same tendency was found in subgroups stratified by tumor stages and cancer interval period: OS was similar between groups with and without prior cancer (both p values> 0.1). In the multivariate Cox regression model, prior cancer did not adversely impact patients’ survival (HR: 1.024; 95% CI: 0.961–1.092). In the validation cohort from our institution, prior cancer had no significant association with worse outcomes (p = 0.48).

Conclusion

For HCC patients, prior cancer did not compromise their survival, regardless of tumor stage and cancer interval period. Exclusion criteria for HCC clinical trials could be reconsidered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-07870-0.

Variable impact of prior cancer history on the survival of lung cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) is commonly diagnosed in patients who have survived a prior malignancy. However, it is currently unclear whether NSCLC patient survival is impacted by the potential for previously-treated malignancies to recur. Understanding the impact of a prior cancer history on NSCLC survival could not only enhance decision making but could affect eligibility for NSCLC studies.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for NSCLC patients (stage I-IV) diagnosed between 2004-2014. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were estimated to analyze overall survival across a variety of treatment approaches and stages in the presence and absence of a prior cancer history.

RESULTS

A total of 821,323 patients with a newly diagnosed NSCLC were identified including 179,512 (21.9%) with a prior history of cancer. The unadjusted 5-year overall survival of patients with a prior cancer history (9.8%) was slightly better to those without a cancer history (9.5%, 95% CI 11.76-11.84, P < 0.0001). However, adjusted analyses revealed the impact of prior cancer history was extremely heterogenous across stage and treatment approach. Ultimately, 51.4% of patients fell into a subgroup in which prior cancer history appeared to compromise survival, 16.3% in which the difference was not significant, and 32.3% in which prior cancer was associated with increased survival. Patients with earlier-staged tumors were the most negatively NSCLC impacted by prior cancer history.

CONCLUSIONS

The association between prior cancer history and survival of newly diagnosed NSCLC patients is highly variable and to some degree reflects a patient's potential for cure.

Impact of prior cancer history on the overall survival of patients newly diagnosed with cancer: A pan-cancer analysis of the SEER database

The population of cancer survivors with prior cancer is rapidly growing. Whether a prior cancer diagnosis interferes with outcome is unknown. We conducted a pan-cancer analysis to determine the impact of prior cancer history for patients newly diagnosed with cancer. We identified 20 types of primary solid tumors between 2004 and 2008 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Demographic and clinicopathologic variables were compared by χ² test and t-test as appropriate. The propensity score-adjusted Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the impact of prior cancer on overall survival (OS). Among 1,557,663 eligible patients, 261,474 (16.79%) had a history of prior cancer. More than 65% of prior cancers were diagnosed within 5 years. We classified 20 cancer sites into two groups (PCI and PCS) according to the different impacts of prior cancer on OS. PCI patients with a prior cancer history, which involved the colon and rectum, bone and soft tissues, melanoma, breast, cervix uteri, corpus and uterus, prostate, urinary bladder, kidney and renal pelvis, eye and orbits, thyroid, had inferior OS. The PCS patients (nasopharynx, esophagus, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, lung, ovary and brain) with a prior cancer history showed similar OS to that of patients without prior cancer. Our pan-cancer study presents the landscape for the survival impact of prior cancer across 20 cancer types. Compared to the patients without prior cancer, the PCI group had inferior OS, while the PCS group had similar OS. Further studies are still needed.

Revisiting a longstanding clinical trial exclusion criterion: impact of prior cancer in early-stage lung cancer

Background:

Early-stage lung cancer represents a key focus of numerous multicenter clinical trials, but common exclusion criteria such as a prior cancer diagnosis may limit enrollment. We examined the prevalence and prognostic impact of a prior cancer diagnosis among patients with early-stage lung cancer.

Methods:

We identified patients>65 years of age with early-stage lung cancer diagnosed 1996–2009 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Prior cancers were characterized by type, stage, and timing with respect to the lung cancer diagnosis. All-cause and lung cancer specific-survival rates were compared between patients with and without prior cancer using Cox regression analyses and propensity scores.

Results:

Among 42,910 patients with early-stage lung cancer, one-fifth (21%) had a prior cancer. The most common prior cancers were prostate (21%), breast (18%), gastrointestinal (17%), and other genitourinary (15%). Most prior cancers were localized, and 61% were diagnosed within 5 years of the lung cancer diagnosis. There was no difference in all-cause survival between patients with and without prior cancer (hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; P=0.52). Lung cancer specific survival was improved among patients with prior cancer (HR 0.79; P<0.001).

Conclusions:

A prior cancer history may exclude a substantial proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer from enrollment in clinical trials. Without adverse effect on clinical outcomes, inclusion of patients age >65 years with prior cancer in clinical trials should be considered to improve study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.

Modelling spatially correlated survival data for individuals with multiple cancers

Epidemiologists and biostatisticians investigating spatial variation in diseases are often interested in estimating spatial effects in survival data, where patients are monitored until their time to failure (for example, death, relapse). Spatial variation in survival patterns often reveals underlying lurking factors, which, in turn, assist public health professionals in their decision-making process to identify regions requiring attention. The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database of the National Cancer Institute provides a fairly sophisticated platform for exploring novel approaches in modelling cancer survival, particularly with models accounting for spatial clustering and variation. Modelling survival data for patients with multiple cancers poses unique challenges in itself and in capturing the spatial associations of the different cancers. This paper develops the Bayesian hierarchical survival models for capturing spatial patterns within the framework of proportional hazard. Spatial variation is introduced in the form of county-cancer level frailties. The baseline hazard function is modelled semiparametrically using mixtures of beta distributions. We illustrate with data from the SEER database, perform model checking and comparison among competing models, and discuss implementation issues.

Prior cancer does not adversely affect survival in locally advanced lung cancer: A national SEER-medicare analysis

INTRODUCTION

Management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer is among the most highly contested areas in thoracic oncology. In this population, a history of prior cancer frequently results in exclusion from clinical trials and may influence therapeutic decisions. We therefore determined prevalence and prognostic impact of prior cancer among these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients>65years of age diagnosed 1992-2009 with locally advanced lung cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked dataset. We characterized prior cancer by prevalence, type, stage, and timing. We compared all-cause and lung cancer-specific survival between patients with and without prior cancer using propensity score-adjusted Cox regression.

RESULTS

51,542 locally advanced lung cancer patients were included; 15.8% had a history of prior cancer. Prostate (25%), gastrointestinal (17%), breast (16%), and other genitourinary (15%) were the most common types of prior cancer, and 76% percent of prior cancers were localized or in situ stage. Approximately half (54%) of prior cancers were diagnosed within 5 years of the index lung cancer date. Patients with prior cancer had similar (propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P=0.005) and improved lung cancer-specific (HR 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.86; P<0.001) survival compared to patients with no prior cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with locally advanced lung cancer, prior cancer does not adversely impact clinical outcomes. Patients with locally advanced lung cancer and a history of prior cancer should not be excluded from clinical trials, and should be offered aggressive, potentially curative therapies if otherwise appropriate.

Parametric models for spatially correlated survival data for individuals with multiple cancers

Incorporating spatial variation could potentially enhance information coming from survival data. In addition, simultaneous (joint) modeling of time-to-event data from different diseases, such as cancers, from the same patient could provide useful insights as to how these diseases behave together. This paper proposes Bayesian hierarchical survival models for capturing spatial correlations within the proportional hazards (PH) and proportional odds (PO) frameworks. Parametric (Weibull for the PH and log-logistic for the PO) models were used for the baseline distribution while spatial correlation is introduced in the form of county-cancer-level frailties. We illustrate with data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute on patients in Iowa diagnosed with multiple gastrointestinal cancers. Model checking and comparison among competing models were performed and some implementation issues were presented. We recommend the use of the spatial PH model for this data set.

Occurrence of cancer at multiple sites: towards distinguishing multigenesis from metastasis

Background

Occurrence of tumors at multiple sites is a hallmark of malignant cancers and contributes to the high mortality of cancers. The formation of multi-site cancers (MSCs) has conventionally been regarded as a result of hematogenous metastasis. However, some MSCs may appear as unusual in the sense of vascular dissemination pattern and therefore be explained by alternative metastasis models or even by non-metastatic independent formation mechanisms.

Results

Through literature review and incorporation of recent advance in understanding aging and development, we identified two alternative mechanisms for the independent formation of MSCs: 1) formation of separate tumors from cancer-initiating cells (CICs) mutated at an early stage of development and then diverging as to their physical locations upon further development, 2) formation of separate tumors from different CICs that contain mutations in some convergent ways. Either of these processes does not require long-distance migration and/or vascular dissemination of cancer cells from a primary site to a secondary site. Thus, we classify the formation of these MSCs from indigenous CICs (iCICs) into a new mechanistic category of tumor formation – multigenesis.

Conclusion

A multigenesis view on multi-site cancer (MSCs) may offer explanations for some "unusual metastasis" and has important implications for designing expanded strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of cancers.

Reviewers

This article was reviewed by Carlo C. Maley nominated by Laura F. Landweber and Razvan T. Radulescu nominated by David R. Kaplan. For the full reviews, please go to the Reviewers' comments section.

Cancer-specific survival of patients with multiple cancers: an application to patients with multiple breast cancers

In the analysis of cause-specific survival, the causes of death must be known. For single-cancer patients with a known cause of death, the estimation of the cause-specific survival rate is straightforward. For multiple-cancer patients with two primary cancers, however, the analysis of cause-specific survival rates is more complex, particularly if the cancers are of the same primary site. In these situations, a concept of cancer-specific survival may also be distinguished from cause-specific survival. Cancer-specific survival rates are studied here by introducing two models, the primary one where the death from cancer is attributed to one of the cancers, and an alternative where such an attribution is not necessary. The models are illustrated using data on patients with multiple breast cancers. The model-based survival rates are compared with each other and with the corresponding relative survival rates based on analogous modelling of relative survival. The results show that for the subsequent breast cancer, the cancer-specific survival rates based on the alternative, where the distinction between the cancers as a cause of death was not necessary, tended to be higher than those based on that distinction. It is thus possible that the subsequent cancer was too often coded as a cause of death, particularly when being localized at diagnosis.