Clarke C.A.,Cancer Prevention Institute of California |
Clarke C.A.,Stanford University |
Robbins H.A.,U.S. National Institutes of Health |
Tatalovich Z.,U.S. National Institutes of Health |
And 8 more authors.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Background: Solid organ transplant recipients have elevated risks of virus-related cancers, in part because of long-term immunosuppression. Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is an aggressive skin cancer recently found to have a viral origin, but little is known regarding the occurrence of MCC after transplant. Methods: We linked the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients with data from 15 population-based cancer registries to ascertain MCC occurrence among 189498 solid organ transplant recipients from 1987 to 2009. Risks for MCC following transplantation were compared with the general population using standardized incidence ratios, and Poisson regression was used to compare incidence rates according to key patient and transplant characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: After solid organ transplantation, overall risk of MCC was increased 23.8-fold (95% confidence interval = 19.6 to 28.7, n = 110). Adjusted risks were highest among older recipients, increased with time since transplantation, and varied by organ type (all P ≤. 007). Azathioprine, cyclosporine, and mTOR inhibitors given for maintenance immunosuppression increased risk, and non-Hispanic white recipients on cyclosporine and azathioprine experienced increasing MCC risk with lower latitude of residence (ie, higher ultraviolet radiation exposure, P =. 012). Conclusions: MCC risk is sharply elevated after solid organ transplant, likely resulting from long-term immunosuppression. Immunosuppressive medications may act synergistically with ultraviolet radiation to increase risk. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Source
Schymura M.J.,New York State Department of Health |
Kahn A.R.,New York State Department of Health |
German R.R.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
Hsieh M.-C.,Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center |
And 5 more authors.
Background: Despite the large number of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, there is as yet no consensus concerning appropriate treatment. The purpose of this study was to describe the initial treatment patterns for localized prostate cancer in a population-based sample and to determine the clinical and patient characteristics associated with initial treatment and overall survival.Methods: The analysis included 3,300 patients from seven states, diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer in 1997. We examined the association of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with four treatment options: radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, and watchful waiting. Diagnostic and treatment information was abstracted from medical records. Socioeconomic measures were derived from the 2000 Census based on the patient's residence at time of diagnosis. Vital status through December 31, 2002, was obtained from medical records and linkages to state vital statistics files and the National Death Index. Multiple logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards models identified factors associated with initial treatment and overall survival, respectively.Results: Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received the following treatments: radical prostatectomy (39.7%), radiation therapy (31.4%), hormone therapy (10.3%), or watchful waiting (18.6%). After multivariable adjustment, the following variables were associated with conservative treatment (hormone therapy or watchful waiting): older age, black race, being unmarried, having public insurance, having non-screen detected cancer, having normal digital rectal exam results, PSA values above 20, low Gleason score (2-4), comorbidity, and state of residence. Among patients receiving definitive treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiation therapy), older age, being unmarried, PSA values above 10, unknown Gleason score, state of residence, as well as black race in patients under 60 years of age, were associated with receipt of radiation therapy. Overall survival was related to younger age, being married, Gleason score under 8, radical prostatectomy, and state of residence. Comorbidity was only associated with risk of death within the first three years of diagnosis.Conclusions: In the absence of clear-cut evidence favoring one treatment modality over another, it is important to understand the factors that inform treatment selection. Since state of residence was a significant predictor of both treatment as well as overall survival, true regional differences probably exist in how physicians and patients select treatment options. Factors affecting treatment choice and treatment effectiveness need to be further explored in future population-based studies. © 2010 Schymura et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source
German R.R.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
Fink A.K.,ICF Macro |
Heron M.,National Center for Health Statistics |
Stewart S.L.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
And 3 more authors.
Background: One measure of the accuracy of cancer mortality statistics is the concordance between cancer defined as the underlying cause of death from death certificates and cancer diagnoses recorded in central, population-based cancer registries. Previous studies of such concordance are outdated. Objective: To characterize the accuracy of cancer mortality statistics from the concordance between cancer cause of death and primary cancer site at diagnosis. Design: Central cancer registry records from California, Colorado, and Idaho in the U.S. were linked with state vital statistics data and evaluated by demographic and tumor information across 79 site categories. A retrospective arm (confirmation rate per 100 deaths) compared death certificate data from 2002 to 2004 with cancer registry diagnoses from 1993 to 2004, while a prospective arm (detection rate per 100 deaths) compared cancer registry diagnoses from 1993 to 1995 with death certificate data from 1993 to 2004 by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) version used to code deaths. Results: With n=265,863 deaths where cancer was recorded as the underlying cause based on the death certificate, the overall confirmation rate for ICD-10 was 82.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.6-83.0%), the overall detection rate for ICD-10 was 81.0% (95% CI, 80.4-81.6%), and the overall detection rate for ICD-9 was 85.0% (95% CI, 84.8-85.2%). These rates varied across primary sites, where some rates were <50%, some were 95% or greater, and notable differences between confirmation and detection rates were observed. Conclusions: Important unique information on the quality of cancer mortality data obtained from death certificates is provided. In addition, information is provided for future studies of the concordance of primary cancer site between population-based cancer registry data and data from death certificates, particularly underlying causes of death coded in ICD-10. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Source
Engels E.A.,U.S. National Cancer Institute |
Pfeiffer R.M.,U.S. National Cancer Institute |
Fraumeni Jr. J.F.,U.S. National Cancer Institute |
Kasiske B.L.,Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation |
And 17 more authors.
JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association
Context: Solid organ transplant recipients have elevated cancer risk due to immunosuppression and oncogenic viral infections. Because most prior research has concerned kidney recipients, large studies that include recipients of differing organs can inform cancer etiology. Objective: To describe the overall pattern of cancer following solid organ transplantion. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study using linked data on solid organ transplant recipients from the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (1987-2008) and 13 state and regional cancer registries. Main Outcome Measures: Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and excess absolute risks (EARs) assessing relative and absolute cancer risk in transplant recipients compared with the general population. Results: The registry linkages yielded data on 175 732 solid organ transplants (58.4% for kidney, 21.6% for liver, 10.0% for heart, and 4.0% for lung). The overall cancer risk was elevated with 10 656 cases and an incidence of 1375 per 100 000 person-years (SIR, 2.10 [95% CI, 2.06-2.14]; EAR, 719.3 [95% CI, 693.3-745.6] per 100 000 person-years). Risk was increased for 32 different malignancies, some related to known infections (eg, anal cancer, Kaposi sarcoma) and others unrelated (eg, melanoma, thyroid and lip cancers). The most common malignancies with elevated risk were non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=1504; incidence: 194.0 per 100 000 person-years; SIR, 7.54 [95% CI, 7.17-7.93]; EAR, 168.3 [95% CI, 158.6-178.4] per 100 000 person-years) and cancers of the lung (n=1344; incidence: 173.4 per 100 000 person-years; SIR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.86-2.08]; EAR, 85.3 [95% CI, 76.2-94.8] per 100 000 person-years), liver (n=930; incidence: 120.0 per 100 000 person-years; SIR, 11.56 [95% CI, 10.83-12.33]; EAR, 109.6 [95% CI, 102.0-117.6] per 100 000 person-years), and kidney (n=752; incidence: 97.0 per 100 000 person-years; SIR, 4.65 [95% CI, 4.32- 4.99]; EAR, 76.1 [95% CI, 69.3-83.3] per 100 000 person-years). Lung cancer risk was most elevated in lung recipients (SIR, 6.13 [95% CI, 5.18-7.21]) but also increased among other recipients (kidney: SIR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.34-1.59]; liver: SIR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.74-2.19]; and heart: SIR, 2.67 [95% CI, 2.40-2.95]). Liver cancer risk was elevated only among liver recipients (SIR, 43.83 [95% CI, 40.90-46.91]), who manifested exceptional risk in the first 6 months (SIR, 508.97 [95% CI, 474.16-545.66]) and a 2-fold excess risk for 10 to 15 years thereafter (SIR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.57-3.04]). Among kidney recipients, kidney cancer risk was elevated (SIR, 6.66 [95% CI, 6.12- 7.23]) and bimodal in onset time. Kidney cancer risk also was increased in liver recipients (SIR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.40-2.29]) and heart recipients (SIR, 2.90 [95% CI, 2.32- 3.59]). Conclusion: Compared with the general population, recipients of a kidney, liver, heart, or lung transplant have an increased risk for diverse infection-related and unrelated cancers. ©2011 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Source
Johnson C.J.,Cancer Data Registry of Idaho |
Weir H.K.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
Fink A.K.,ICF International |
German R.R.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
And 11 more authors.
Background: In order to ensure accurate survival estimates, population-based cancer registries must ascertain all, or nearly all, patients diagnosed with cancer in their catchment area, and obtain complete follow-up information on all deaths that occurred among registered cancer patients. In the US, linkage with state death records may not be sufficient to ascertain all deaths. Since 1979, all state vital statistics offices have reported their death certificate information to the National Death Index (NDI). Objective: This study was designed to measure the impact of linkage with the NDI on population-based relative and cancer cause-specific survival rates in the US. Methods: Central cancer registry records for patients diagnosed 1993-1995 from California, Colorado, and Idaho were linked with death certificate information (deaths 1993-2004) from their individual state vital statistics offices and with the NDI. Two databases were created: one contained incident records with deceased patients linked only to state death records and the second database contained incident records with deceased patients linked to both state death records and the NDI. Survival estimates and 95% confidence intervals from each database were compared by state and primary site category. Results: At 60 months follow-up, 42.1-48.1% of incident records linked with state death records and an additional 0.7-3.4% of records linked with the NDI. Survival point estimates from the analysis without NDI were not contained within the corresponding 95% CIs from the NDI augmented analysis for all sites combined and colorectal, pancreas, lung and bronchus, breast, prostate, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and Kaposi sarcoma cases in all 3 states using relative survival methods. Additional combinations of state and primary site had significant survival estimate differences, which differed by method (relative versus cause-specific survival). Conclusion: To ensure accurate population-based cancer survival rates, linkage with the National Death Index to ascertain out of state and late registered deaths is a necessary process for US central cancer registries. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Source