Search

Background: Brain metastases are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Integration of hospice at the end of life offers patients symptom relief and improves quality of life, particularly for elderly patients who are less able to tolerate brain-directed therapy. Population-level investigations of hospice utilization among elderly patients with brain metastases are limited.Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database for primary cancer sites that commonly metastasize to the brain, we identified 50 148 patients (aged 66 years and older) diagnosed with brain metastases between 2005 and 2016. We calculated the incidence, timing, and predictors of hospice enrollment using descriptive techniques and multivariable logistic regression. All statistical tests were 2-sided.Results: The incidence of hospice enrollment was 71.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 71.0 to 71.9; P < .001), a rate that increased over the study period (P < .001). The odds of enrollment for black (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.71 to 0.82; P < .001), Hispanic (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.87; P < .001), and Asian patients (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.48 to 0.57; P < .001) were substantially lower than white patients; men were less likely to be enrolled in hospice than women (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.81; P < .001). Among patients enrolled in hospice, 32.6% (95% CI = 32.1 to 33.1; P < .001) were enrolled less than 7 days prior to death, a rate that was stable over the study period.Conclusions: Hospice is used for a majority of elderly patients with brain metastases although a considerable percentage of patients die without hospice services. Many patients enroll in hospice late and, concerningly, statistically significant sociodemographic disparities exist in hospice utilization. Further investigations to facilitate targeted interventions addressing such disparities are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, the gold standard for evaluation of cancer therapeutics, including medical devices, has been the randomized clinical trial. Although high-quality clinical data are essential for safe and judicious use of therapeutic oncology devices, class II devices require only preclinical data for US Food and Drug Administration approval and are often not rigorously evaluated prior to widespread uptake. Herein, we review master protocol design in medical oncology and its application to therapeutic oncology devices, using examples from radiation oncology. Unique challenges of clinical testing of radiation oncology devices (RODs) include patient and treatment heterogeneity, lack of funding for trials by industry and health-care payers, and operator dependence. To address these challenges, we propose the use of master protocols to optimize regulatory, financial, administrative, quality assurance, and statistical efficiency of trials evaluating RODs. These device-specific master protocols can be extrapolated to other devices and encompass multiple substudies with the same design, statistical considerations, logistics, and infrastructure. As a practical example, we outline our phase I and II master protocol trial of stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive radiotherapy, which to the best of our knowledge is the first master protocol trial to test a ROD. Development of more efficient clinical trials is needed to promote thorough evaluation of therapeutic oncology devices, including RODs, in a resource-limited environment, allowing more practical and rapid identification of the most valuable advances in our field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that African-Americans with colon cancer have worse overall and stage-specific survival rates than Caucasians. Such differences could reflect variation in access to health care, in tumor biology, or in treatment efficacy. Little is known about potential differences in chemotherapy-related toxicities between African-Americans and Caucasians. In this study, we examined survival and toxic effects among African-American and Caucasian patients enrolled in a large, randomized phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected colon cancer.Methods: We analyzed data on 3380 patients (344 African-Americans and 3036 Caucasians) enrolled in a randomized trial of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy in patients with stage II (high risk) and stage III colon cancer to evaluate differences in outcomes and toxicity. We compared disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between African-Americans and Caucasians by the Kaplan-Meier method, computed Cox proportional hazards by multivariable analysis, and compared treatment-related toxicity rates by Fisher's exact test. All statistical tests were two-sided.Results: We found no differences in DFS or OS between African-American and Caucasian patients. Five-year DFS was 57% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 52% to 62%) for African-Americans and 58% (95% CI = 56% to 60%) for Caucasians (P =.15), and 5-year OS was 65% (95% CI = 60% to 70%) for African-Americans and 66% (95% CI = 64% to 68%) for Caucasians (P =.38). On multivariable analysis, no statistically significant difference in disease recurrence or death was detected between the racial/ethnic groups (hazard ratios for African-Americans versus Caucasians: disease recurrence = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.9 to 1.3; death = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.9 to 1.3). Treatment-related toxicity differed between the African-American and Caucasian patients, with African-Americans experiencing statistically significantly lower rates of diarrhea (P<.001), nausea (P<.001), vomiting (P =.01), stomatitis (P<.001), and overall toxicity (P =.005).Conclusions: In this study of patients with similar access to health care resources and treatment with adjuvant chemotherapy, we found similar 5-year DFS and OS in African-Americans and Caucasians with stage II and III colon cancer. The two groups derived similar benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy. Moreover, African-Americans appeared to experience less treatment-related toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The incidence of second primary colorectal cancer in patients with a history of colon cancer, compared with patients with a history of adenomatous polyps, is unknown. It is unclear whether guidelines for colonoscopy screening in patients with polyps are appropriate for patients with previous colon cancer.Objective: To determine the incidence of second primary colorectal cancer after treatment for localized colon cancer and to compare this incidence with that of first primary colorectal cancer in both the general population and high-risk patients.Design: Historical cohort study.Setting: An international, multi-institutional trial of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for localized colon cancer.Patients: 3278 patients with resected stage II and stage III colon cancer.Measurements: Occurrence of endoscopic or radiologic colon surveillance and incidence of second primary colorectal cancer.Results: Forty-two cases of second primary invasive colon cancer were found over 15 345 person-years of follow-up, yielding an incidence rate of 274 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI, 196 to 369 per 100 000 person-years) and a cumulative incidence of 1.5% (CI, 1.1% to 2.0%) at 5 years. This rate was compared with rates of first colon cancer in two reference groups: the general population and patients who had undergone frequent colonoscopy and polypectomy because of a history of adenomatous polyps; standardized incidence ratios were 1.6 (CI, 1.2 to 2.2) and 6.8 (CI, 2.7 to 22.0), respectively.Conclusion: The incidence of second primary colorectal cancer remains high despite intensive surveillance strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Investigates ambient particle infiltration in nine nosmoking homes in metropolitan Boston, Massachusetts area. Indoor and outdoor fine particulate matter and size-specific volume concentrations; Quantification of indoor penetration and deposition behavior using time- and size-resolved particulate data.

A study to characterize 1-hr multi-pollutant exposures was performed in Baltimore, MD, during the summer of 1998 and the winter of 1999, and was conducted over a 15-day period in each of the two seasons. Personal exposures were measured by a trained field technician, who wore a newly developed Roll-Around System (RAS) to measure 1-hr PM[sub2.5] and gaseous (CO, O[sub3], NO[sub2], SO[sub2], volatile organic compounds [VOCs]) exposures. One-hour O[sub3], NO[sub2], and SO[sub2] personal exposures were measured using samplers developed in our laboratory, while short-term PM[sub2.5], CO, and VOCs exposures were measured using currently available monitors. All 1-hr multi-pollutant exposures were measured while the technician performed pre-determined activities, beginning at 7:00 a.m. and ending at 7:00 p.m. of the same day. Activities were scripted to simulate activities performed by older adults (65+ years of age). Corresponding 1-hr ambient pollutant concentrations were obtained from federal or state monitoring networks. In this paper, we discuss the results from our study and present our descriptive analysis of the 1-hr personal particulate and gaseous exposure data. Personal PM[sub2.5], O[sub3], CO, and VOCs exposures showed substantial variability over the 12-hr sampling periods. Multiple pairwise comparison tests showed that 1-hr personal O[sub3] exposures were significantly lower in indoor microenvironments as compared with outdoor microenvironments. One-hour personal CO exposures measured in vehicles were significantly higher than those measured in other microenvironments. The associations between 1-hr personal exposures and corresponding ambient concentrations differed by pollutant and by microenvironment. For example, the correlation between personal PM[sub2.5] exposures and ambient concentrations was lowest (r[subs] = 0.36, p < 0.05) in the winter for indoor non-residential microenvironments, and was highest (r[subs] = 0.90, p< 0.05) in the winter... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning have shown great potential in streamlining clinical tasks. However, most studies remain confined to in silico validation in small internal cohorts, without external validation or data on real-world clinical utility. We developed a strategy for the clinical validation of deep learning models for segmenting primary non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) tumours and involved lymph nodes in CT images, which is a time-intensive step in radiation treatment planning, with large variability among experts., Methods: In this observational study, CT images and segmentations were collected from eight internal and external sources from the USA, the Netherlands, Canada, and China, with patients from the Maastro and Harvard-RT1 datasets used for model discovery (segmented by a single expert). Validation consisted of interobserver and intraobserver benchmarking, primary validation, functional validation, and end-user testing on the following datasets: multi-delineation, Harvard-RT1, Harvard-RT2, RTOG-0617, NSCLC-radiogenomics, Lung-PET-CT-Dx, RIDER, and thorax phantom. Primary validation consisted of stepwise testing on increasingly external datasets using measures of overlap including volumetric dice (VD) and surface dice (SD). Functional validation explored dosimetric effect, model failure modes, test-retest stability, and accuracy. End-user testing with eight experts assessed automated segmentations in a simulated clinical setting., Findings: We included 2208 patients imaged between 2001 and 2015, with 787 patients used for model discovery and 1421 for model validation, including 28 patients for end-user testing. Models showed an improvement over the interobserver benchmark (multi-delineation dataset; VD 0·91 [IQR 0·83-0·92], p=0·0062; SD 0·86 [0·71-0·91], p=0·0005), and were within the intraobserver benchmark. For primary validation, AI performance on internal Harvard-RT1 data (segmented by the same expert who segmented the discovery data) was VD 0·83 (IQR 0·76-0·88) and SD 0·79 (0·68-0·88), within the interobserver benchmark. Performance on internal Harvard-RT2 data segmented by other experts was VD 0·70 (0·56-0·80) and SD 0·50 (0·34-0·71). Performance on RTOG-0617 clinical trial data was VD 0·71 (0·60-0·81) and SD 0·47 (0·35-0·59), with similar results on diagnostic radiology datasets NSCLC-radiogenomics and Lung-PET-CT-Dx. Despite these geometric overlap results, models yielded target volumes with equivalent radiation dose coverage to those of experts. We also found non-significant differences between de novo expert and AI-assisted segmentations. AI assistance led to a 65% reduction in segmentation time (5·4 min; p<0·0001) and a 32% reduction in interobserver variability (SD; p=0·013)., Interpretation: We present a clinical validation strategy for AI models. We found that in silico geometric segmentation metrics might not correlate with clinical utility of the models. Experts' segmentation style and preference might affect model performance., Funding: US National Institutes of Health and EU European Research Council., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AH reports consultancy fees for Altis Labs; and owning stock in Altis Labs. HJWLA reports being a scientific adviser and shareholder for Onc.Ai, Love Health, Health-AI, and Bristol Myers Squibb. RHM reports a research grant from ViewRay; honoraria from NewRT and ViewRay; is on an advisory board for AstraZeneca; and reports travel expenses from NewRT. DEK reports honoraria from RefleXion; and is a consultant and on an advisory board for Genentech. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prognostic estimates for patients with brain metastases (BM) stem from younger, healthier patients enrolled in clinical trials or databases from academic centers. We characterized population-level prognosis in elderly patients with BM., Methods: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data, we identified 9882 patients ≥65 years old with BM secondary to lung, breast, skin, kidney, esophageal, colorectal, and ovarian primaries between 2014 and 2016. Survival was assessed by primary site and evaluated with Cox regression., Results: In total, 2765 versus 7117 patients were diagnosed with BM at primary cancer diagnosis (synchronous BM, median survival = 2.9 mo) versus thereafter (metachronous BM, median survival = 3.4 mo), respectively. Median survival for all primary sites was ≤4 months, except ovarian cancer (7.5 mo). Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)- or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-based therapy for synchronous BM displayed notably better median survival at 12.5 and 20.1 months, respectively, versus 2.8 months exhibited by other patients with NSCLC; survival estimates in melanoma patients based on receipt of BRAF/MEK therapy versus not were 6.7 and 2.8 months, respectively. On multivariable regression, older age, greater comorbidity, and type of managing hospital were associated with poorer survival; female sex, higher median household income, and use of brain-directed stereotactic radiation, neurosurgical resection, or systemic therapy (versus brain-directed non-stereotactic radiation) were associated with improved survival (all P < 0.05)., Conclusions: Elderly patients with BM have a poorer prognosis than suggested by prior algorithms. If prognosis is driven by systemic and not intracranial disease, brain-directed therapy with potential for significant toxicity should be utilized cautiously., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Lockdown aiming at slowing COVID-19 transmission has altered nature accessibility patterns, creating quasi-experimental conditions to assess if retracted nature contact and perceived nature deprivation influence physical and emotional wellbeing. We measure through on-line survey methods ( n = 529) how pandemic mandates limiting personal movement and outdoor nature access within the United States affect self-assessed nature exposure, perceived nature deprivation, and subsequent flourishing as measured by the Harvard Flourishing Index. Results indicate that perceived nature deprivation strongly associates with local nature contact, time in nature, and access to municipal nature during the pandemic, after controlling for lockdown mandates, job status, household composition, and sociodemographic variables. Our hypothesis is that individuals with strong perceived nature deprivation under COVID-19 leads to diminished wellbeing proved true. Interaction models of flourishing showed positive modification of nature affinity with age and qualitative modification of nature deprivation with race. Our results demonstrate the potential of local nature contact to support individual wellbeing in a background context of emotional distress and social isolation, important in guiding public health policies beyond pandemics.

Background: Brain metastases (BM) cause symptoms that supportive medications can alleviate. We assessed whether racial disparities exist in supportive medication utilization after BM diagnosis., Methods: Medicare-enrolled patients linked with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (SEER) who had diagnoses of BM between 2007 and 2016 were identified. Fourteen supportive medication classes were studied: non-opioid analgesics, opioids, anti-emetics, anti-epileptics, headache-targeting medications, steroids, cognitive aids, antidepressants, anxiolytics, antidelirium/antipsychotic agents, muscle relaxants, psychostimulants, sleep aids, and appetite stimulants. Drug administration ≤30 days following BM diagnosis was compared by race using multivariable logistic regression., Results: Among 17,957 patients, headache aids, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were prescribed less frequently to African Americans (odds ratio [95% CI] = 0.81 [0.73-0.90], P < 0.001; OR = 0.68 [0.57-0.80], P < 0.001; and OR = 0.68 [0.56-0.82], P < 0.001, respectively), Hispanics (OR = 0.83 [0.73-0.94], P = 0.004 OR = 0.78 [0.64-0.97], P = 0.02; and OR = 0.63 [0.49-0.81], P < 0.001, respectively), and Asians (OR = 0.81 [0.72-0.92], P = 0.001, OR = 0.67 [0.53-0.85], P = 0.001, and OR = 0.62 [0.48-0.80], P < 0.001, respectively) compared with non-Hispanic Whites. African Americans also received fewer anti-emetics (OR = 0.75 [0.68-0.83], P < 0.001), steroids (OR = 0.84 [0.76-0.93], P < 0.001), psychostimulants (OR = 0.14 [0.03-0.59], P = 0.007), sleep aids (OR = 0.71 [0.61-0.83], P < 0.001), and appetite stimulants (OR = 0.85 [0.77-0.94], P = 0.002) than Whites. Hispanic patients less frequently received antidelirium/antipsychotic drugs (OR = 0.57 [0.38-0.86], P = 0.008), sleep aids (OR = 0.78 [0.64-0.94, P = 0.01), and appetite stimulants (OR = 0.87 [0.76-0.99], P = 0.04). Asian patients received fewer opioids (OR = 0.86 [0.75-0.99], P = 0.04), anti-emetics (OR = 0.83 [0.73-0.94], P = 0.004), anti-epileptics (OR = 0.83 [0.71-0.97], P = 0.02), steroids (OR = 0.81 [0.72-0.92], P = 0.001), muscle relaxants (OR = 0.60 [0.41-0.89], P = 0.01), and appetite stimulants (OR = 0.87 [0.76-0.99], P = 0.03). No medication class was prescribed significantly less frequently to Whites., Conclusions: Disparities in supportive medication prescription for non-White/Hispanic groups with BM exist; improved provider communication and engagement with at-risk patients is needed., Key Points: 1. Patients with BM commonly experience neurologic symptoms.2. Supportive medications improve quality of life among patients with BM.3. Non-White patients with BM receive fewer supportive medications than White patients., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) remains an important component of treatment for patients with multiple brain metastases (BrM) but is associated with significant neurotoxicity and memory impairment. Although RTOG 0614 demonstrated that administration of memantine to patients receiving WBRT may reduce radiation-associated cognitive decline, prior literature has suggested that radiation oncologists are hesitant to prescribe memantine. We sought to assess the frequency of memantine prescription in patients managed with non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation for BrM., Methods: Patients > 65 years old with newly diagnosed BrM between 2007 and 2016 receiving non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation (including WBRT) were identified using the SEER-Medicare database. Receipt of memantine with non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation was defined as any Part D claim for memantine 30 days before or after initiation of non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation. Clinical and demographic variables among patients who did and did not receive memantine were compared., Results: Between 2007 and 2016, we identified 6220 patients with BrM receiving non-stereotactic, brain-directed radiation. Only 2.20% of patients (n = 137) received memantine with radiation. Rates were 1.10% versus 5.14% in the period preceding (2007-2013) and following (2014-2016) the publication of RTOG 0614, respectively. Overall utilization of memantine remained low across several clinical, demographic, and prognostic variables., Conclusion: Despite phase 3 evidence supporting memantine utilization among patients receiving WBRT, our population-based study indicates that rates of memantine prescription are strikingly low, although memantine utilization seems to be increasing since publication of RTOG 0614. Further investigation is needed to identify provider and practice-related barriers preventing incorporation of memantine into management paradigms.

Historically, the gold standard for evaluation of cancer therapeutics, including medical devices, has been the randomized clinical trial. Although high-quality clinical data are essential for safe and judicious use of therapeutic oncology devices, class II devices require only preclinical data for US Food and Drug Administration approval and are often not rigorously evaluated prior to widespread uptake. Herein, we review master protocol design in medical oncology and its application to therapeutic oncology devices, using examples from radiation oncology. Unique challenges of clinical testing of radiation oncology devices (RODs) include patient and treatment heterogeneity, lack of funding for trials by industry and health-care payers, and operator dependence. To address these challenges, we propose the use of master protocols to optimize regulatory, financial, administrative, quality assurance, and statistical efficiency of trials evaluating RODs. These device-specific master protocols can be extrapolated to other devices and encompass multiple substudies with the same design, statistical considerations, logistics, and infrastructure. As a practical example, we outline our phase I and II master protocol trial of stereotactic magnetic resonance imaging-guided adaptive radiotherapy, which to the best of our knowledge is the first master protocol trial to test a ROD. Development of more efficient clinical trials is needed to promote thorough evaluation of therapeutic oncology devices, including RODs, in a resource-limited environment, allowing more practical and rapid identification of the most valuable advances in our field., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is increasing in the United States. Current epidemiologic assessments of the national burden of HPV-positive OPSCC are needed., Methods: The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results HPV Status Database included 12,017 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of pharyngeal subsites, including OPSCC and non-OPSCC head and neck cancer subsites (hypopharynx, nasopharynx, and "other pharynx"), diagnosed from 2013 to 2014. Age-adjusted incidence rates per 100,000 persons by HPV status were calculated. An exploratory Fine-Gray competing-risks regression determined the associations between HPV status and cancer-specific mortality., Results: From 2013 to 2014, the U.S. incidence of HPV-positive OPSCC was 4.62 [95% confidence interval (CI), 4.51-4.73] versus 1.82 (95% CI, 1.75-1.89) per 100,000 persons for HPV-negative OPSCC. The incidence of HPV-positive versus negative non-OPSCC of the head and neck was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.58-0.66) versus 1.38 (95% CI, 1.32-1.44). White race (5.47) and male sex (8.00) had the highest incidences of HPV-positive OPSCC, with a unimodal age incidence distribution peaking at ages 60 to 64 years (27.23). HPV positivity was associated with lower cancer-specific mortality than HPV-negative disease for OPSCC [adjusted HR (aHR), 0.40; P < 0.001], but not non-OPSCC (aHR, 1.08; P = 0.81), P interaction = 0.002., Conclusions: The U.S. incidence of HPV-positive OPSCC was 4.62 per 100,000 persons. Most cases were found in white male patients younger than 65 years, where it represents the sixth most common incident nonskin cancer. The favorable prognosis associated with HPV appears to be limited to the oropharynx., Impact: This large population-based epidemiologic assessment of the U.S. population defines the incidence and demographic burden of HPV-positive OPSCC., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently made substantial changes to the school meal standards. The media and public outcry have suggested that this has led to substantially more food waste., Purpose: School meal selection, consumption, and waste were assessed before and after implementation of the new school meal standards., Methods: Plate waste data were collected in four schools in an urban, low-income school district. Logistic regression and mixed-model ANOVA were used to estimate the differences in selection and consumption of school meals before (fall 2011) and after implementation (fall 2012) of the new standards among 1030 elementary and middle school children. Analyses were conducted in 2013., Results: After the new standards were implemented, fruit selection increased by 23.0% and entrée and vegetable selection remained unchanged. Additionally, post-implementation entrée consumption increased by 15.6%, vegetable consumption increased by 16.2%, and fruit consumption remained the same. Milk selection and consumption decreased owing to an unrelated milk policy change., Conclusions: Although food waste levels were substantial both pre- and post-implementation, the new guidelines have positively affected school meal selection and consumption. Despite the increased vegetable portion size requirement, consumption increased and led to significantly more cups of vegetables consumed. Significantly more students selected a fruit, whereas the overall percentage of fruit consumed remained the same, resulting in more students consuming fruits. Contrary to media reports, these results suggest that the new school meal standards have improved students' overall diet quality. Legislation to weaken the standards is not warranted., (Copyright © 2014 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The research goals of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium are to determine how characteristics and beliefs of patients, providers, and health care organizations influence the treatments and outcomes of individuals with newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancers. As CanCORS results will inform national policy, it is important to know how they generalize to the United States population with these cancers., Research Design: This study assessed the representativeness of the CanCORS cohort of 10,547 patients with lung cancer (LC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) enrolled between 2003 and 2005. We compared characteristics (sex, race, age, and disease stage) with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) population of 234,464 patients with new onset of these cancers during the CanCORS recruitment period., Results: The CanCORS sample is well matched to the SEER Program for both cancers. In CanCORS, 41% LC/47% CRC were female versus 47% LC/49% CRC in SEER. African American, Hispanic, and Asian cases differed by no more than 5 percentage points between CanCORS and SEER. The SEER population is slightly older, with the percentage of patients older than 75 years 33.1% LC/37.3% CRC in SEER versus 26.9% LC/29.4% in CanCORS, and also has a slightly higher proportion of early stage patients. We also found that the CanCORS cohort was representative within specific SEER regions that map closely to CanCORS sites., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the CanCORS Consortium was successful in enrolling a demographically representative sample within the CanCORS regions.

Purpose: Postorchiectomy adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for Stage I seminoma can be associated with long-term toxicity, and management strategies with a lower treatment burden achieve the same excellent cure rate. Because studies suggest that radiation oncologists in the United States continue to recommend RT for these patients, we sought to identify factors associated with management recommendations., Methods and Materials: We conducted a one-time internet-based survey among 491 randomly selected American radiation oncologists self-described as specializing in genitourinary oncology., Results: Response rate was 53% (n = 261). Forty-nine percent of respondents worked in university-affiliated practices. Sixty-two percent of respondents always/usually recommended adjuvant RT for patients with Stage I seminoma, whereas 21% always/usually recommended surveillance and 3% always/usually recommended chemotherapy. One third (33%) expressed concerns that patients who experienced relapse during surveillance could not be salvaged. Although 88% of physicians were aware of an increased risk of second malignant neoplasms (SMN) after adjuvant RT, 85% underestimated its magnitude. Compared with physicians not typically recommending RT, physicians who always/usually recommended RT were more likely to believe that patients might not be salvaged at relapse during surveillance (p = 0.008) and were less aware of the association between RT and SMN (p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Respondents who always/usually recommend postorchiectomy RT for patients with Stage I seminoma are more likely to underestimate late RT morbidity and to believe that surveillance is associated with increased mortality. Given the equivalent efficacy and reduced morbidity of surveillance compared with RT, our findings underscore the need for ongoing physician education to increase appropriate clinical implementation of surveillance strategies., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Goals of Work: The National Cancer Institute's Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium is conducting a population-based study of newly diagnosed patients with lung and colorectal cancer to describe the experience of persons living with cancer and to understand which barriers present the most significant obstacles to their receipt of appropriate care. The keystone to this effort is the baseline patient survey administered approximately 4 months after diagnosis., Patients and Methods: We developed a survey to obtain information from patients newly diagnosed with lung and colorectal cancer about their personal characteristics, decision making, experience of care, and outcomes. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a lengthy and clinically detailed interview in a convenience sample of patients within 8 months of diagnosis (n=71)., Main Results: The median length of the interviews was 75 min for patients with lung cancer (range 43-130) and 82 min for patients with colorectal cancer (range 46-119). Most patients had received some form of treatment for their cancer: 66.1% had undergone surgery, 28.2% had received radiation therapy, and 54.9% were treated with chemotherapy. In addition, 26.7% reported their overall health was less than 70 on a 0-100 scale, demonstrating that patients with substantial health impairment were able to complete the survey., Conclusions: A clinically detailed survey of newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer patients is feasible. A modified version of this survey is being fielded by the CanCORS Consortium and should provide much needed population-based data regarding patients' experiences across the continuum of cancer care and their outcomes.

Background: Studies that use registry data have demonstrated superior long-term overall survival after curative surgical resection of colon cancer at hospitals where the volume of such surgeries is high. However, because such administrative data lack information on cancer recurrence, the true nature of this relation remains uncertain., Objective: To determine whether hospital procedure volume predicts long-term outcomes of colon cancer surgery., Design: Nested cohort study within a randomized clinical trial., Setting: Intergroup 0089 national adjuvant colon cancer study conducted between 1988 and 1992., Patients: 3161 patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colon cancer., Measurements: Overall survival and recurrence-free survival, by hospital procedure volume as defined by Medicare claims data., Results: With a median follow-up of 9.4 years, 5-year overall survival significantly differed across tertiles of hospital procedure volume (63.8% for patients who had resection at low-volume hospitals compared with 67.3% at high-volume hospitals; P = 0.04). After adjustment for other predictors of colon cancer outcome, the hazard ratio for overall mortality in patients treated at low-volume centers was 1.16 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.32). However, the risk for cancer recurrence was not associated with hospital procedure volume. Five-year recurrence-free survival was 63.9% for patients who had resection at low-volume hospitals compared with 63.0% at high-volume hospitals (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03 [CI, 0.89 to 1.18]). These findings did not materially change after stratification by other potential demographic and clinical predictors of outcome., Conclusions: According to prospectively recorded data from a large clinical trial, patients whose colon cancer was resected at low-volume hospitals experienced a higher risk for long-term mortality; however, this increased mortality was not attributable to differences in colon cancer recurrences.

Background: Obesity is a risk factor for the development of colon carcinoma. The influence of body mass index (BMI) on long-term outcomes and treatment-related toxicity in patients with colon carcinoma has not been well characterized., Methods: This cohort study was conducted within a large, randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial of 3759 men and women with high-risk, Stage II and Stage III colon carcinoma who were treated between 1988 and 1992 throughout the United States. With a median follow-up of 9.4 years, the authors examined the influence of BMI on disease recurrence, overall survival, and treatment-related toxicity., Results: Compared with women of normal weight (BMI, 21.0-24.9 kg/m(2)), obese women with colon carcinoma (BMI > or = 30.0 kg/m(2)) experienced significantly worse overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.07-1.67) and a nonsignificant increase in the risk of disease recurrence (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.59). The influence of BMI among women was not related to any differences in chemotherapy dose-intensity across categories of BMI. In contrast, BMI was not related significantly to long-term outcomes among male patients in this cohort. Among all study participants, obese patients had significantly lower rates of Grade 3-4 leukopenia and lower rates of any Grade > or = 3 toxicity compared with patients of normal weight., Conclusions: Among women with Stage II-III colon carcinoma, obesity was associated with a significant increase in overall mortality as well as a borderline significant increase in disease recurrence. Nonetheless, obesity was not associated with any increase in chemotherapy-related toxicity., (Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.DOI 10.1002/cncr.11544)