Search

Background: Precision medicine has become a mainstay of cancer care in recent years. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program has been an authoritative source of cancer statistics and data since 1973. However, tumor genomic information has not been adequately captured in the cancer surveillance data, which impedes population-based research on molecular subtypes. To address this, the SEER Program has developed and implemented a centralized process to link SEER registries' tumor cases with genomic test results that are provided by molecular laboratories to the registries., Methods: Data linkages were carried out following operating procedures for centralized linkages established by the SEER Program. The linkages used Match*Pro, a probabilistic linkage software, and were facilitated by the registries' trusted third party (an honest broker). The SEER registries provide to NCI limited datasets that undergo preliminary evaluation prior to their release to the research community., Results: Recently conducted genomic linkages included OncotypeDX Breast Recurrence Score, OncotypeDX Breast Ductal Carcinoma in Situ, OncotypeDX Genomic Prostate Score, Decipher Prostate Genomic Classifier, DecisionDX Uveal Melanoma, DecisionDX Preferentially Expressed Antigen in Melanoma, DecisionDX Melanoma, and germline tests results in Georgia and California SEER registries., Conclusions: The linkages of cancer cases from SEER registries with genomic test results obtained from molecular laboratories offer an effective approach for data collection in cancer surveillance. By providing de-identified data to the research community, the NCI's SEER Program enables scientists to investigate numerous research inquiries., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Cancer incidence among individuals with incarceration exposure has been rarely studied due to the absence of linked datasets. This study examined cancer incidence during incarceration and postincarceration compared to the general population using a statewide linked cohort., Methods: We constructed a retrospective cohort from a linkage of state tumor registry and correctional system data for Connecticut residents from 2005 to 2016, and identified cancers diagnosed during and within 12 months postincarceration. We estimated incidence rates (including for screen-detectable cancers) and calculated the standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for the incarcerated and recently released populations, relative to the general population. We also examined cancer incidence by race and ethnicity within each group., Results: Cancer incidence was lower in incarcerated individuals (SIR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.56-0.72), but higher in recently released individuals (SIR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.23-1.47) compared with the general population, and across all race and ethnic strata. Similarly, nonscreen-detectable cancer incidence was lower in incarcerated and higher in recently released populations compared to the general population. However, non-Hispanic Black individuals had elevated incidence of screen-detectable cancers compared with non-Hispanic White individuals across all three populations (incarcerated, SIR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.03-2.53; recently released, SIR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.32-2.47; and general population, SIR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.16-1.21)., Conclusion: Compared with the general population, incarcerated persons have a lower cancer incidence, whereas recently released persons have a higher cancer incidence. Irrespective of incarceration status, non-Hispanic Black individuals have a higher incidence of screen-detectable cancers compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Supplemental studies examining cancer screening and diagnoses during incarceration are needed to discern the reasons for observed disparities in incidence., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The complex relationship between incarceration and cancer survival has not been thoroughly evaluated. We assessed whether cancer diagnosis during incarceration or the immediate post-release period is associated with higher rates of mortality compared with those never incarcerated., Methods: We conducted a population-based study using a statewide linkage of tumor registry and correctional system movement data for Connecticut adult residents diagnosed with invasive cancer from 2005 through 2016. The independent variable was place of cancer diagnosis: during incarceration, within 12 months post-release, and never incarcerated. The dependent variables were five-year cancer-related and overall survival rates., Results: Of the 216,540 adults diagnosed with invasive cancer during the study period, 239 (0.11%) people were diagnosed during incarceration, 479 (0.22%) within 12 months following release, and the remaining were never incarcerated. After accounting for demographics and cancer characteristics, including stage of diagnosis, the risk for cancer-related death at five years was significantly higher among those diagnosed while incarcerated (AHR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.12-1.73) and those recently released (AHR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.57-2.10) compared to the never-incarcerated group. The risk for all-cause mortality was also higher for those diagnosed with cancer while incarcerated (AHR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.63-2.26) and those recently released (AHR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.94-2.45)., Conclusions and Relevance: There is a higher risk of cancer mortality among individuals diagnosed with cancer during incarceration and in the first-year post-release, which is not fully explained by stage of diagnosis. Cancer prevention and treatment efforts should target people who experience incarceration and identify why incarceration is associated with worse outcomes., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests. OTO reports funding unrelated to submitted work from Radiation Oncology Institute, NRG Oncology, Pfizer/ASCO Foundation and Bristol Meyers Squibb Foundation. CPG has received research funding NCCN Foundation (funds provided by AstraZeneca), Genentech as well as funding from Johnson and Johnson to help devise and implement new approaches sharing clinical trial data. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction: Incarceration is associated with decreased cancer screening rates and a higher risk for hospitalisation and death from cancer after release from prison. However, there is a paucity of data on the relationship between incarceration and cancer outcomes and quality of care. In the Incarceration and Cancer-Related Outcomes Study, we aim to develop a nuanced understanding of how incarceration affects cancer incidence, mortality and treatment, and moderates the relationship between socioeconomic status, structural racism and cancer disparities., Methods and Analysis: We will use a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design. We will create the first comprehensive linkage of data from the Connecticut Department of Correction and the statewide Connecticut Tumour Registry. Using the linked dataset, we will examine differences in cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis between individuals currently incarcerated, formerly incarcerated and never incarcerated in Connecticut from 2005 to 2016. Among individuals with invasive cancer, we will assess relationships among incarceration, quality of cancer care and mortality, and will assess the degree to which incarceration status moderates relationships among race, socioeconomic status, quality of cancer care and cancer mortality. We will use multivariable logistic regression and Cox survival models with interaction terms as appropriate. These results will inform our conduct of in-depth interviews with individuals diagnosed with cancer during or shortly after incarceration regarding their experiences with cancer care in the correctional system and the immediate postrelease period. The results of this qualitative work will help contextualise the results of the data linkage., Ethics and Dissemination: The Yale University Institutional Review Board (#2000022899) and the Connecticut Department of Public Health Human Investigations Committee approved this study. We will disseminate study findings through peer-reviewed publications and academic and community presentations. Access to the deidentified quantitative and qualitative datasets will be made available on review of the request., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CG has received research funding, though Yale, from the NCCN Foundation (Pfizer/Astra-Zeneca) and Genentech, as well as funding from Johnson & Johnson to help devise and implement new approaches to sharing clinical trial data, and funding from Flatiron for travel to and speaking at a scientific conference. All other authors report no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Nearly half of operative mortalities occur outside the traditionally studied 30-day period after surgery. To identify additional opportunities to improve surgical safety, the circumstances of deaths occurring 31-90 days after complex cancer surgery are analyzed., Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥ 65 years who died within 90 days of complex cancer surgery for nonmetastatic cancer were analyzed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and the Connecticut Tumor Registry (CTR) databases., Results: Of the 36,114 patients undergoing complex cancer surgery from 2004 to 2013 in SEER-Medicare, 1367 (3.8%) died within 31-90 days ("late mortalities"). Seventy-eight percent of late mortalities were readmitted prior to death. The highest proportion of late mortalities occurred during a readmission (49%), and 11% were never discharged from their index admission. Cause of death (COD) was largely attributed to the malignancy itself (56%), which is unlikely to be the underlying cause. Of the noncancer COD, cardiac causes were most frequent (34%), followed by pulmonary causes (18%). Death was rarely attributed to thromboembolic disease (< 1%). The CTR provided location of death, which was most commonly in a hospital (65%) or nursing facility (20%); death at home was rare (6%)., Conclusions: The vast majority of patients dying between 31 and 90 days of surgery were admitted to a hospital or nursing facility at the time of their death after initially being discharged, and few patients died at home. Greater clarity in death documentation is needed to identify specific opportunities to rescue patients from fatal complications arising in the later postoperative period.

Purpose: To examine the concordance between cancer registry and self-reported data for race, Hispanic ethnicity, and cancer type in the American Cancer Society's Studies of Cancer Survivors (SCS) I and II., Methods: We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and Kappa statistics for SCS-I and II. The gold standard for cancer type was registry data and for race and ethnicity was self-reported questionnaire data., Results: Among 6,306 survivors in SCS-I and 9,170 in SCS-II, overall agreement (Kappa) for cancer type was 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. Concordance was strongest for breast and prostate cancer (Sensitivity ≥ 0.98 in SCS-I and II). For race, Kappa was 0.85 (SCS-I) and 0.93 (SCS-II), with strong concordance for white (Sensitivity = 0.95 in SCS-I and 0.99 in SCS-II) and black survivors (Sensitivity = 0.94 in SCS-I and 0.99 in SCS-II), but weak concordance for American Indian/Alaska Native (Sensitivity = 0.23 in SCS-I and 0.19 in SCS-II) and Asian/Pacific Islander survivors (Sensitivity = 0.43 in SCS-I and 0.87 in SCS-II). Agreement was moderate for Hispanic ethnicity (Kappa = 0.73 and 0.71; Sensitivity = 0.74 and 0.76, in SCS-I and SCS-II, respectively)., Conclusions: We observed strong concordance between cancer registry data and self-report for cancer type in this national sample. For race and ethnicity, however, concordance varied significantly, with the poorest concordances observed for American Indian/Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander survivors. Ensuring accurate recording of race/ethnicity data in registries is crucial for monitoring cancer trends and addressing cancer disparities among cancer survivors.

Purpose: HIV-infected individuals with cancer have worse survival rates compared with their HIV-uninfected counterparts. One explanation may be differing cancer treatment; however, few studies have examined this., Patients and Methods: We used HIV and cancer registry data from Connecticut, Michigan, and Texas to study adults diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or cervical, lung, anal, prostate, colorectal, or breast cancers from 1996 to 2010. We used logistic regression to examine associations between HIV status and cancer treatment, adjusted for cancer stage and demographic covariates. For a subset of local-stage cancers, we used logistic regression to assess the relationship between HIV status and standard treatment modality. We identified predictors of cancer treatment among individuals with both HIV and cancer., Results: We evaluated 3,045 HIV-infected patients with cancer and 1,087,648 patients with cancer without HIV infection. A significantly higher proportion of HIV-infected individuals did not receive cancer treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.99), lung cancer (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.80 to 2.64), Hodgkin's lymphoma (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.37), prostate cancer (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.31 to 2.46), and colorectal cancer (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.38 to 3.72). HIV infection was associated with a lack of standard treatment modality for local-stage DLBCL (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.72), non-small-cell lung cancer (aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.03), and colon cancer (aOR, 4.77; 95% CI, 1.76 to 12.96). Among HIV-infected individuals, factors independently associated with lack of cancer treatment included low CD4 count, male sex with injection drug use as mode of HIV exposure, age 45 to 64 years, black race, and distant or unknown cancer stage., Conclusion: HIV-infected individuals are less likely to receive treatment for some cancers than uninfected people, which may affect survival rates., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: World Trade Center (WTC) rescue and recovery workers were exposed to a complex mix of pollutants and carcinogens., Objective: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate cancer incidence in responders during the first 7 years after 11 September 2001., Methods: Cancers among 20,984 consented participants in the WTC Health Program were identified through linkage to state tumor registries in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to compare cancers diagnosed in responders to predicted numbers for the general population. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate associations with degree of exposure., Results: A total of 575 cancers were diagnosed in 552 individuals. Increases above registry-based expectations were noted for all cancer sites combined (SIR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.25), thyroid cancer (SIR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.70, 3.27), prostate cancer (SIR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.44), combined hematopoietic and lymphoid cancers (SIR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.71), and soft tissue cancers (SIR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13, 4.05). When restricted to 302 cancers diagnosed ≥ 6 months after enrollment, the SIR for all cancers decreased to 1.06 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.18), but thyroid and prostate cancer diagnoses remained greater than expected. All cancers combined were increased in very highly exposed responders and among those exposed to significant amounts of dust, compared with responders who reported lower levels of exposure., Conclusion: Estimates should be interpreted with caution given the short follow-up and long latency period for most cancers, the intensive medical surveillance of this cohort, and the small numbers of cancers at specific sites. However, our findings highlight the need for continued follow-up and surveillance of WTC responders.

Considerable progress in cancer prevention, early detection and treatment has led to a reduction in the incidence and mortality of this disease, and resulted in significant improvements in cancer survival. Despite these advances, certain populations in Connecticut continue to suffer disparately from this frequently debilitating disease. In this article, we use data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry to examine trends in the four most commonly diagnosed cancers (breast, prostate, lung and colorectal) that collectively account for more than 50% of cancers diagnosed annually in Connecticut. We report on time trends and compare incidence and mortality rates, stage at diagnosis, survival and screening rates, giving insight into opportunities to improve health and reduce disparities in residents of the state.

Background: Knowledge of family cancer history is essential for estimating an individual's cancer risk and making clinical recommendations regarding screening and referral to a specialty cancer genetics clinic. However, it is not clear if reported family cancer history is sufficiently accurate for this purpose., Methods: In the population-based 2001 Connecticut Family Health Study, 1019 participants reported on 20 578 first-degree relatives (FDR) and second-degree relatives (SDR). Of those, 2605 relatives were sampled for confirmation of cancer reports on breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. Confirmation sources included state cancer registries, Medicare databases, the National Death Index, death certificates, and health-care facility records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for reports on lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer and after stratification by sex, age, education, and degree of relatedness and used to estimate report accuracy. Pairwise t tests were used to evaluate differences between the two strata in each stratified analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Overall, sensitivity and positive predictive value were low to moderate and varied by cancer type: 60.2% and 40.0%, respectively, for lung cancer reports, 27.3% and 53.5% for colorectal cancer reports, 61.1% and 61.3% for breast cancer reports, and 32.0% and 53.4% for prostate cancer reports. Specificity and negative predictive value were more than 95% for all four cancer types. Cancer history reports on FDR were more accurate than reports on SDR, with reports on FDR having statistically significantly higher sensitivity for prostate cancer than reports on SDR (58.9% vs 21.5%, P = .002) and higher positive predictive value for lung (78.1% vs 31.7%, P < .001), colorectal (85.8% vs 43.5%, P = .004), and breast cancer (79.9% vs 53.6%, P = .02)., Conclusions: General population reports on family history for the four major adult cancers were not highly accurate. Efforts to improve accuracy are needed in primary care and other health-care settings in which family history is collected to ensure appropriate risk assessment and clinical care recommendations.

Background: Although family history of cancer is widely ascertained in research and clinical care, little is known about assessment methods, accuracy, or other quality measures. Given its widespread use in cancer screening and surveillance, better information is needed about the clarity and accuracy of family history information reported in the general population., Methods: This telephone survey in Connecticut examined coherence and completeness of reports from 1,019 respondents about 20,504 biological relatives., Results: Of 2,657 cancer reports, 97.7% were judged consistent with malignancy (versus benign or indeterminate conditions); 79% were site specific, 10.1% had unspecified cancer sites, and 8.6% had "ill-defined" sites. Only 6.1% of relatives had unknown histories. Unknown histories and ambiguous sites were significantly higher for second-degree relatives. The adjusted percentage of first-degree relative reports with ambiguous sites increased with decreasing education and African-American race of survey respondents, and with deceased vital status of relatives. Ambiguous second-degree relative reports were also associated with deceased vital status and with male gender of respondents., Conclusions: These findings suggest that family history of cancer reports from the general population are generally complete and coherent., Impact: Strategies are needed to improve site specificity and thus maximize the utility of such information in primary care settings.