Search

Background: Cancer studies reported mixed results on benefit finding (BF) and posttraumatic growth (PTG) prevalence and few were focused on long-term survivors.Methods: BF and PTG were assessed in a multi-regional population-based study in Germany with 6952 breast, colorectal and prostate cancer survivors, using the Benefit Finding Scale and Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. We calculated the age-adjusted prevalence, stratified by demographical and clinical characteristics.Results: Overall, 66.0% of cancer survivors indicated moderate-to-high BF, and 20.5% moderate-to-high PTG. Age-adjusted prevalence of BF and PTG differed according to cancer type (breast > colorectal > prostate) and sex (female > male). BF and PTG prevalence were higher in younger than in older respondents; the age-adjusted prevalence was higher in respondents who survived more years after diagnosis. The strength and direction of associations of age-adjusted prevalence with cancer stage, disease recurrence, and time since diagnosis varied according to cancer type and sex.Conclusions: A substantial proportion of long-term cancer survivors reported moderate-to-high BF and PTG. However, the prevalence was lower in older and male cancer survivors, and during the earlier years after cancer diagnosis. Further longitudinal studies on PTG and BF in cancer survivors are warranted to address heterogeneity in survivors' experience after cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We investigated whether associations between prevalent diabetes and cancer risk are pertinent to older adults and whether associations differ across subgroups of age, body weight status or levels of physical activity.Methods: We harmonised data from seven prospective cohort studies of older individuals in Europe and the United States participating in the CHANCES consortium. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate the associations of prevalent diabetes with cancer risk (all cancers combined, and for colorectum, prostate and breast). We calculated summary risk estimates across cohorts using pooled analysis and random-effects meta-analysis.Results: A total of 667,916 individuals were included with an overall median (P25-P75) age at recruitment of 62.3 (57-67) years. During a median follow-up time of 10.5 years, 114,404 total cancer cases were ascertained. Diabetes was not associated with the risk of all cancers combined (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-1.04; I2 = 63.3%). Diabetes was positively associated with colorectal cancer risk in men (HR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.08-1.26; I2 = 0%) and a similar HR in women (1.13; 95% CI: 0.82-1.56; I2 = 46%), but with a confidence interval including the null. Diabetes was inversely associated with prostate cancer risk (HR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.77-0.85; I2 = 0%), but not with postmenopausal breast cancer (HR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.89-1.03; I2 = 0%). In exploratory subgroup analyses, diabetes was inversely associated with prostate cancer risk only in men with overweight or obesity.Conclusions: Prevalent diabetes was positively associated with colorectal cancer risk and inversely associated with prostate cancer risk in older Europeans and Americans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have replaced guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBTs) in several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of this transition based on the Wallonia-Brussels-organised CRC screening programme.Methods: A total of 1,569,868 individuals aged 50-74 years, who were invited to screening during 2009-2017, were studied by linking their screening records with insurance, pathology and cancer data in the Belgian Cancer Registry. We compared neoplasm detection rates and positive predictive values (PPVs) of gFOBT and FIT at 15 µg haemoglobin per gram cut-off in screen-naive individuals. We furthermore examined the incidence rates of interval cancer in gFOBT- and FIT-based screening programme.Results: Advanced neoplasms were detected less frequently by gFOBT (0.8%) than by FIT (1.3%), with a difference of 0.5% (P < 0.01). PPVs were lower for gFOBT (15.1%) than for FIT (21.7%) for advanced neoplasms (difference 6.6%, P < 0.01). Compared to participants with negative gFOBT, those with negative FIT were 77% less likely to develop interval cancer (incidence rate ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.33).Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that in an organised CRC screening programme, replacing gFOBT with FIT improved neoplasm detection rate and substantially reduced interval cancer incidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]