Search

Background: Evidence-based guidance for starting ages of screening for first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with prostate cancer (PCa) to prevent stage III/IV or fatal PCa is lacking in current PCa screening guidelines. We aimed to provide evidence for risk-adapted starting age of screening for relatives of patients with PCa.Methods and Findings: In this register-based nationwide cohort study, all men (aged 0 to 96 years at baseline) residing in Sweden who were born after 1931 along with their fathers were included. During the follow-up (1958 to 2015) of 6,343,727 men, 88,999 were diagnosed with stage III/IV PCa or died of PCa. The outcomes were defined as the diagnosis of stage III/IV PCa or death due to PCa, stratified by age at diagnosis. Using 10-year cumulative risk curves, we calculated risk-adapted starting ages of screening for men with different constellations of family history of PCa. The 10-year cumulative risk of stage III/IV or fatal PCa in men at age 50 in the general population (a common recommended starting age of screening) was 0.2%. Men with ≥2 FDRs diagnosed with PCa reached this screening level at age 41 (95% confidence interval (CI): 39 to 44), i.e., 9 years earlier, when the youngest one was diagnosed before age 60; at age 43 (41 to 47), i.e., 7 years earlier, when ≥2 FDRs were diagnosed after age 59, which was similar to that of men with 1 FDR diagnosed before age 60 (41 to 45); and at age 45 (44 to 46), when 1 FDR was diagnosed at age 60 to 69 and 47 (46 to 47), when 1 FDR was diagnosed after age 69. We also calculated risk-adapted starting ages for other benchmark screening ages, such as 45, 55, and 60 years, and compared our findings with those in the guidelines. Study limitations include the lack of genetic data, information on lifestyle, and external validation.Conclusions: Our study provides practical information for risk-tailored starting ages of PCa screening based on nationwide cancer data with valid genealogical information. Our clinically relevant findings could be used for evidence-based personalized PCa screening guidance and supplement current PCa screening guidelines for relatives of patients with PCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The question of whether having a family history of prostatic borderline or in situ neoplasia (PBISN) is associated with an increased risk of invasive prostate cancer (PCa) or death from PCa remains unanswered. The objective of the current study was to provide an evidence-based risk estimation for the relatives of patients with PBISN.Methods: Nationwide Swedish family cancer data sets were used for the current study, including data regarding all residents of Sweden who were born after 1931 and their parents. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), and lifetime cumulative risks of PCa were calculated for men with different constellations of family history. Family history was defined as a dynamic (time-dependent) variable considering changes during follow-up (1958-2015).Results: Of the 6,343,727 men in the current study, a total of 238,961 developed invasive PCa and 5756 were diagnosed with PBISN during the follow-up. Men with 1 first-degree relative who was diagnosed with PBISN had a 70% increased risk of invasive PCa (SIR, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-1.9) and PCa death (SMR, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.2) compared with men with no family history of PBISN or invasive PCa. These were rather close to estimates in men with 1 first-degree relative diagnosed with invasive PCa (SIR, 2.1 and SMR, 1.8). A higher risk of PCa in family members was found among patients with a family history of PBISN and/or PCa diagnosed before age 60 years. The results in terms of cumulative risk resembled this trend.Conclusions: A family history of PBISN appears to be as important as a family history of invasive PCa with regard to an increased risk of invasive PCa or PCa mortality. Such a history should not be overlooked in PCa screening recommendations or in future research regarding familial PCa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Familial breast cancer risk studies usually overlook the dynamic nature of family history.Methods: The authors assessed the effect of incorporating the timing of cancer diagnosis events into the assessment of familial risks of breast cancer in first-degree and second-degree relatives in a nationwide cohort study of 5,099,172 women (follow-up was between 1958-2015). Family history was assessed using 3 approaches: 1) as a static variable (ever having a relative with breast cancer); 2) as accumulative history; and 3) as a dynamic variable (time-dependent variable).Results: For women aged <50 years, familial risk was mostly higher when family history was assessed as a dynamic variable compared with using a static or accumulative family history. For example, the cumulative risk of receiving a breast cancer diagnosis until age 50 years for women with a history of breast cancer in 1 first-degree relative was 2.6% (95% CI, 2.5%-2.7%) using the static method, 2.4% (95% CI, 2.3%-2.4%) using the accumulative method, and 3.1% (95% CI, 3.0%-3.2%) using the dynamic method. Relative risk in women aged <50 years with a breast cancer diagnosis in a sister was 1.40-fold (95% CI, 1.31-fold to 1.48-fold) using the static method, 1.66-fold (95% CI, 1.57-fold to 1.76-fold) using the accumulative method, and 2.28-fold (95% CI, 2.07-fold to 2.51-fold) using the dynamic method.Conclusions: The results of the current study demonstrated that assessing family history as static, accumulative, or dynamic results in different familial risk estimates. The answer as to which method to use for family history assessment depends on the implications of the study, with the dynamic method appearing to be better suited for risk stratification studies, the accumulative method being the most convenient in practice and the least favored for risk prediction, and the static method being suitable for etiological impact and risk attribution studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although reproductive history is recognised to affect the risk of breast cancer, current breast cancer screening guidelines do not consider risk differences by this important factor. As there is a need for an earlier screening in women at increased risk of breast cancer, we provided evidence-based risk-adapted starting age of screening based on different reproductive profiles. We conducted a nationwide cohort study including 5,099,172 Swedish women born after 1931. Records of study participants in Swedish Cancer Registry, Multi-generation Register, Cause of Death Register, and national censuses (follow-up, 1958–2015) have been linked. We used 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer curves to determine the age at which women with different reproductive factors attained the risk level at which breast screening is usually recommended. The 10-year cumulative risk of breast cancer at age 40, 45 and 50 years in the general population, at which current screening guidelines recommend screening was calculated. We found that women with various reproductive factors (defined by parity and age at first birth) obtained this level of risk at different ages. The difference was between nine years later and three years earlier. This study provides the age at which women with particular reproductive profile could start risk-adapted breast cancer screening. This supplies novel information for clinicians and women about when to start breast cancer screening and is an important step towards a personalised screening. • Women with low parity and late age at first birth are at higher risk of breast cancer. • Starting ages of breast cancer screening can be adapted to these reproductive factors. • We calculated risk-adapted starting ages using highly-valid nationwide data. • They ranged from 3 years earlier to 9 years later than current recommendations. • This study contributes to personalised breast cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: For individuals without a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC), colonoscopy screening every 10 years is recommended to reduce CRC incidence and mortality. However, debate exists about whether and for how long this 10-year interval could be safely expanded., Objective: To assess how many years after a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC a second colonoscopy can be performed., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study leveraged Swedish nationwide register-based data to examine CRC diagnoses and CRC-specific mortality among individuals without a family history of CRC. The exposed group included individuals who had a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC at age 45 to 69 years between 1990 and 2016. The control group included individuals matched by sex, birth year, and baseline age (ie, the age of their matched exposed individual when the exposed individual's first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC was performed). Individuals in the control group either did not have a colonoscopy during the follow-up or underwent colonoscopy that resulted in a CRC diagnosis. Up to 18 controls were matched with each exposed individual. Individuals were followed up from 1990 to 2018, and data were analyzed from November 2022 to November 2023., Exposure: A first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, defined as a first colonoscopy without a diagnosis of colorectal polyp, adenoma, carcinoma in situ, or CRC before or within 6 months after screening., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were CRC diagnosis and CRC-specific death. The 10-year standardized incidence ratio and standardized mortality ratio were calculated to compare risks of CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed and control groups based on different follow-up screening intervals., Results: The sample included 110 074 individuals (65 147 females [59.2%]) in the exposed group and 1 981 332 (1 172 646 females [59.2%]) in the control group. The median (IQR) age for individuals in both groups was 59 (52-64) years. During up to 29 years of follow-up of individuals with a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, 484 incident CRCs and 112 CRC-specific deaths occurred. After a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, the risks of CRC and CRC-specific death in the exposed group were significantly lower than those in their matched controls for 15 years. At 15 years after a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC, the 10-year standardized incidence ratio was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54-0.94) and the 10-year standardized mortality ratio was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.29-0.94). In other words, the 10-year cumulative risk of CRC in year 15 in the exposed group was 72% that of the 10-year cumulative risk of CRC in the control group. Extending the colonoscopy screening interval from 10 to 15 years in individuals with a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC could miss the early detection of only 2 CRC cases and the prevention of 1 CRC-specific death per 1000 individuals, while potentially avoiding 1000 colonoscopies., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that for the population without a family history of CRC, the 10-year interval between colonoscopy screenings for individuals with a first colonoscopy with findings negative for CRC could potentially be extended to 15 years. A longer interval between colonoscopy screenings could be beneficial in avoiding unnecessary invasive examinations.

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the risk of invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) in relatives of patients with colorectal carcinoma in situ (CCIS), which is lacking in the literature., Patients and Methods: We collected data from Swedish family-cancer datasets and calculated standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and cumulative risk of CRC in family histories of CCIS in first- and second-degree relatives. Family history was defined as a dynamic (time-dependent) variable allowing for changes during the follow-up period from 1958 to 2015. Of 12,829,251 individuals with available genealogical data, 173,796 were diagnosed with CRC and 40,558 with CCIS., Results: The lifetime (0-79 years) cumulative risk of CRC in first-degree relatives of patients with CCIS was 6.5%, which represents a 1.6-fold (95% CI, 1.5-1.7; n=752) increased risk. A similarly increased lifetime cumulative risk (6.7%) was found among first-degree relatives of patients with CRC (SIR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.6-1.7; n=6,965). An increased risk of CRC was also found in half-siblings of patients with CCIS (SIR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.0; n=18) and also in half-siblings of patients with CRC (SIR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.1; n=78). Moreover, the increased risk of CRC was higher for younger age at diagnosis of CCIS in the affected first-degree relative and for younger age at diagnosis of CRC in the index person., Conclusions: Results of this study show that first-degree relatives and half-siblings of patients with CCIS have an increased risk of CRC, which is comparable in magnitude to the risk of those with a family history of invasive CRC. These findings extend available evidence on familial risk of CRC and may help to refine guidelines and recommendations for CRC screening.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is increasing among young adults below screening age, despite the effectiveness of screening in older populations. Individuals with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of early-onset CRC. We aimed to determine how many years earlier than the general population patients with diabetes with/without family history of CRC reach the threshold risk at which CRC screening is recommended to the general population., Methods and Findings: A nationwide cohort study (follow-up:1964-2015) involving all Swedish residents born after 1931 and their parents was carried out using record linkage of Swedish Population Register, Cancer Registry, National Patient Register, and Multi-Generation Register. Of 12,614,256 individuals who were followed between 1964 and 2015 (51% men; age range at baseline 0-107 years), 162,226 developed CRC, and 559,375 developed diabetes. Age-specific 10-year cumulative risk curves were used to draw conclusions about how many years earlier patients with diabetes reach the 10-year cumulative risks of CRC in 50-year-old men and women (most common age of first screening), which were 0.44% and 0.41%, respectively. Diabetic patients attained the screening level of CRC risk earlier than the general Swedish population. Men with diabetes reached 0.44% risk at age 45 (5 years earlier than the recommended age of screening). In women with diabetes, the risk advancement was 4 years. Risk was more pronounced for those with additional family history of CRC (12-21 years earlier depending on sex and benchmark starting age of screening). The study limitations include lack of detailed information on diabetes type, lifestyle factors, and colonoscopy data., Conclusions: Using high-quality registers, this study is, to our knowledge, the first one that provides novel evidence-based information for risk-adapted starting ages of CRC screening for patients with diabetes, who are at higher risk of early-onset CRC than the general population., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background & Aims: Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines acknowledge the need for earlier screening for high-risk individuals, such as those with family history of CRC, there is limited information on how many years earlier these high-risk individuals should be screened; current practice is based on weak evidence. We aimed to provide risk-adapted recommendations on the starting age of CRC screening for individuals with different family histories., Methods: We collected data from nationwide family-cancer data sets in Sweden and calculated risk-adapted starting ages of screening for individuals with different family histories of CRC. Family history was defined as a dynamic (time-dependent) variable, allowing for changes during the follow-up period of 1958 through 2015., Results: During a follow-up of 12,829,251 individuals with genealogy information, 173,796 developed CRC. The 10-year cumulative risk for the average-risk population at age 50 years (the guideline-recommended age for screening) was 0.44%. Individuals with different family histories of CRC attained this equivalent 0.44% risk 3-29 years earlier than their peers in the general population without such a family history. For example, individuals with 1 affected first-degree relative diagnosed before age 45 years reached the corresponding risk level 16 years earlier., Conclusions: We determined risk-adapted starting ages of CRC screening for close or distant relatives of patients with CRC, using high quality nationwide data sets. These findings might be used in counselling individuals about the appropriate age to start CRC screening, to optimize screening practice, and to supplement guidelines for CRC screening., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus (DM) and colorectal cancer (CRC) share some risk factors, including lifestyle and metabolic disturbances. We aimed to provide in-depth information on the association of CRC risk, especially early-onset CRC, with DM, family history of CRC, and age at DM diagnosis., Methods: A nationwide cohort study was conducted using Swedish family cancer data sets, inpatient, and outpatient registers (follow-up: 1964-2015), including all individuals born after 1931 and their parents (12,614,256 individuals; 559,375 diabetic patients; 162,226 CRC patients)., Results: DM diagnosis before the age of 50 years was associated with a 1.9-fold increased risk of CRC before the age of 50 years (95% CI for standardized incidence ratio: 1.6-2.3) vs 1.3-fold risk of CRC at/after the age of 50 years (1.2-1.4). DM diagnosis before the age of 50 years in those with a family history of CRC was associated with 6.9-fold risk of CRC before the age of 50 years (4.1-12) and 1.9-fold risk of CRC at/after the age of 50 years (1.4-2.5). Diabetic patients had a similar lifetime risk of CRC before the age of 50 years (0.4%, 95% CI: 0.3%-0.4%) to those with only a family history of CRC (0.5%, 0.5%-0.5%), double that of the population (0.2%, 0.2%-0.2%)., Discussion: Our large cohort with valid information on DM and family history of cancer showed that DM is associated with increased risk of CRC in a magnitude close to having family history of CRC. Associations of DM and CRC family history with increased CRC risk were most prominent in young adults. These findings warrant further studies on harms, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of CRC screening in patients with diabetes, especially type 2, at earlier ages than in the general population.

The advantage of adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for treating Stage III colon cancer patients is well established and widely accepted. However, many patients with Stage III colon cancer do not receive ACT. Moreover, there are controversies around the effectiveness of ACT for Stage II patients. We investigated the administration of ACT and its association with overall survival in resected Stage II (overall and stratified by low-/high-risk) and Stage III colon cancer patients in three European countries including The Netherlands (2009-2014), Belgium (2009-2013) and Sweden (2009-2014). Hazard ratios (HR) for death were obtained by Cox regression models adjusted for potential confounders. A total of 60244 resected colon cancer patients with pathological Stages II and III were analyzed. A small proportion (range 9-24%) of Stage II and over half (range 55-68%) of Stage III patients received ACT. Administration of ACT in Stages II and III tumors decreased with higher age of patients. Administration of ACT was significantly associated with higher overall survival in high-risk Stage II patients (in The Netherlands (HR; 95%CI = 0.82 (0.67-0.99), Belgium (0.73; 0.59-0.90) and Sweden (0.58; 0.44-0.75)), and in Stage III patients (in The Netherlands (0.47; 0.43-0.50), Belgium (0.46; 0.41-0.50) and Sweden (0.48; 0.43-0.54)). In Stage III, results were consistent across subgroups including elderly patients. Our results show an association of ACT with higher survival among Stage III and high-risk Stage II colon cancer patients. Further investigations are needed on the selection criteria of Stages II and III colon cancer patients for ACT., (© 2017 UICC.)

We aimed at investigating the distribution and risk of all second discordant primary cancers (SDPCs) after a specific first primary cancer in Germany and Sweden to provide etiological understanding of SDPCs and insight into their incidence rates and recording practices. Among 1,537,004 survivors of first primary cancers in Germany and 588,103 in Sweden, overall 80,162 and 32,544 SDPCs were recorded, respectively. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of all SDPCs were elevated at levels between 1.1 and 2.1 after 23 (out of overall 29) cancers in Germany and at levels between 1.1 and 1.6 after 24 cancers in Sweden, and among them, elevated SIRs were found after 19 cancers in both populations. Decreased SIRs at levels ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 were found for some cancers with poor prognosis in Germany only. We found elevated risk after 19 out of 29 cancers in both countries, suggesting common etiology of SDPCs after most of first cancers and registration similarity. Decreased risks after some fatal cancers were found only in Germany, which may be attributed to reporting practices or missed death data in Germany., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Second primary cancer (SPC) has become an increasing concern in cancer survivorship. Patterns of SPCs in different populations may offer clinical implications and research priorities into SPCs. This study is devoted to compare the occurrences and rank correlations of SPCs between Germany and Sweden. Patients diagnosed with 10 common first primaries between 1997 and 2006 from the Swedish Family-Cancer Database and 10 German cancer registries were included in this population-based study. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the strength of the relationship of SPCs between the German and Swedish datasets. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients suggested a strong positive correlation between the German and Swedish datasets based on the ranks of thirty possible SPCs after all selected first cancers. This was also true when we compared the rankings and proportions of the five most common SPCs after site-specific first primaries between the two populations. For kidney cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and leukemia the components of the five most common SPCs was exactly the same. Also, the ranking and the proportions for the three most common SPCs (i.e., colorectal, bladder, and lung cancers) after prostate cancer were identical in the two populations, as were those after most other primary cancers. The strikingly consistent patterns of SPCs in the two populations provide excellent opportunities for joint studies and they also suggest that many underlying reasons for SPC may have universal and tangible causes that await mechanistic dissection., (© 2013 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In unsparing efforts to find the hidden primaries, second primary cancers (SPCs) unrelated to cancer of unknown primary (CUP) are found. The detection rates of SPCs after CUP can be considered as measures for the effectiveness of modern diagnostic techniques in finding tumors. We aimed to compare the rates of specific SPCs found after the work-up of CUP and the more sign/symptom-directed diagnostic approaches applied after any other cancer. The number of CUP patients identified in the nationwide Swedish database and nine German cancer registries was 24 641 from 1997 through 2006, and rate ratios (RRs) for SPCs were recorded in two follow-up periods. The detection rate of SPCs immediately after any other cancer was about two times higher in Germany than in Sweden, but the rate immediately after CUP was almost the same for the two datasets. In the joint analyses after CUP, the RRs of liver, lung, breast, and kidney cancers were higher than after any other cancer, whereas the RRs of prostate, urinary bladder, and connective tissue cancers as well as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were not significantly different; the RR of cancers of upper aerodigestive tract was lower after CUP than after any other cancer. The joint data indicate that the work-up is efficient in detecting tumors in the thoracoabdominal organs that are screened by computed tomography. For some other organ sites, the more sign/symptom-directed diagnostic approaches may be equally efficient. However, none of the applied techniques could detect all tumors immediately after the first diagnosis.