It is unclear whether cancer and its treatments increase the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Our aim was to examine whether cancer survivors have higher risks of poor outcomes in pregnancies conceived after diagnosis than women without cancer, and whether these risks differ by cancer type and race. Diagnoses from cancer registries were linked to pregnancy outcomes from birth certificates in three U.S. states. Analyses were limited to the first, live singleton birth conceived after diagnosis. Births to women without a previous cancer diagnosis in the registry were matched to cancer survivors on age at delivery, parity, race/ethnicity and education. Log-binomial regression was used to estimate risk ratios. Cervical cancer survivors had higher risks of preterm birth (Risk ratio = 2.8, 95% Confidence interval: 2.1, 3.7), as did survivors of invasive breast cancer (RR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1, 1.7) and leukemia (RR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.3, 3.5). We observed a higher risk of small for gestational age (SGA) infants (<10% of weight for age based on a national distribution) in survivors of brain cancer (RR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.8) and extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.5, 3.6). We did not see an increased risk of infants born preterm, low birth weight, or SGA in pregnancies conceived after ductal carcinoma in situ, thyroid cancer, melanoma, or Hodgkin lymphoma. While our results are reassuring for survivors of many cancers, some will need closer monitoring during pregnancy.
We explored the feasibility of using SalesGenie®, a commercially available database, as a potential alternative to traditional methods of selecting controls for population-based case-control studies. An attractive feature of this particular database is that it permits a search within specific age ranges, geographic locations, and household income.
Information on 1,068 cases reported to the California Cancer Registry between 2001 and 2005 was entered manually into the SalesGenie Web-based search engine. The frequency of Registry-to-SalesGenie matches was then compared with the frequency of matching the registry data to the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records. Our findings indicate that the SalesGenie database is currently less comprehensive than DMV records. Nevertheless, Web-based population data sources may provide a potential alternative for population-based studies when used in conjunction with other methods, particularly in states where DMV records are not accessible to researchers.
Background: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) public research database does not include chemotherapy data due to concerns for incomplete ascertainment. To compensate for perceived lack of data quality many researchers use SEER-Medicare linked data, limiting studies to persons over age 65. We sought to determine current SEER ascertainment of chemotherapy receipt in two relatively large SEER registries compared to patient-reported receipt and to assess patterns of under-ascertainment. Methods: In 2011-14, we surveyed patients with Stage III colorectal cancer reported to the Georgia and Metropolitan Detroit SEER registries. 1301/1909 eligible patients responded (68% response rate). Survey responses regarding treatment and sociodemographic factors were merged with SEER data. We compared patient-reported chemotherapy receipt with SEER recorded chemotherapy receipt. We estimated multivariable regression models to assess associations of under-ascertainment in SEER. Results: Eighty-five percent of patients reported chemotherapy receipt. Among those, 10% (n=104) were under-ascertained in SEER (coded as not receiving chemotherapy). In unadjusted analyses, under-ascertainment was more common for older patients (11.8% age 76+ vs. < 9% for all other ages, p=0.01) and varied with SEER registries (10.2% Detroit vs. 6.8% Georgia; p=0.04). On multivariable analyses, chemotherapy under-ascertainment did not vary significantly by any patient attributes. Conclusion: We found a 10% rate of under-ascertainment of adjuvant chemotherapy for resected, stage III colorectal cancer in two SEER registries. Chemotherapy under-ascertainment did not disproportionately affect any patient subgroups. Use of SEER data from select registries is an important resource for researchers investigating contemporary chemotherapy receipt and outcomes.
Background: Interval colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for 3% to 8% of all cases of CRC in the United States. Data on interval CRC by race/ethnicity are scant. Objective: To examine whether risk for interval CRC among Medicare patients differs by race/ethnicity and whether this potential variation is accounted for by differences in the quality of colonoscopy, as measured by physicians' polyp detection rate (PDR). Design: Population-based cohort study. Setting: Medicare program. Participants: Patients aged 66 to 75 years who received colonoscopy between 2002 and 2011 and were followed through 2013. Measurements: Kaplan-Meier curves and adjusted Cox models were used to estimate cumulative probabilities and hazard ratios (HRs) of interval CRC, defined as a CRC diagnosis 6 to 59 months after colonoscopy. Results: There were 2735 cases of interval CRC identified over 235 146 person-years of follow-up. A higher proportion of black persons (52.8%) than white persons (46.2%) received colonoscopy from physicians with a lower PDR. This rate was significantly associated with interval CRC risk. The probability of interval CRC by the end of follow-up was 7.1% in black persons and 5.8% in white persons. Compared with white persons, black persons had significantly higher risk for interval CRC (HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.51]); the disparity was more pronounced for cancer of the rectum (HR, 1.70 [CI, 1.25 to 2.31] ) and distal colon (HR, 1.45 [CI, 1.00 to 2.11]) than for cancer of the proximal colon (HR, 1.17 [CI, 0.96 to 1.42] ). Adjustment for PDR did not alter HRs by race/ethnicity, but differences between black persons and white persons were greater among physicians with higher PDRs. Limitation: Colonoscopy and polypectomy were identified by using billing codes. Conclusion: Among elderly Medicare enrollees, the risk for interval CRC was higher in black persons than in white persons; the difference was more pronounced for cancer of the distal colon and rectum and for physicians with higher PDRs.
Male breast carcinoma (MBC) has been thought to have similar survival as female breast carcinoma (FBC). We studies 172,847 FBC and 1442 MBC from the SEER data and found patients with MBC have worse survival than patients with FBC. Introduction Male breast carcinoma (MBC) is treated similarly to female breast carcinoma (FBC), and similar survival rates for both have been assumed. We analyzed prognostic and clinicopathologic features of MBC to determine whether MBC subtypes differ from FBC subtypes. Patients and Methods We reviewed data for 172,847 FBC and 1442 MBC patients from 2010 to 2012 from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Carcinomas were subtyped according to hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status as HR-positive (HR+)/HER2−, HR+/HER2+, HR−/HER2+, and HR−/HER2−. Results The overall incidence of MBC in all breast carcinoma cases was 0.8%. MBC was more frequently HR+/HER2− than was FBC (78.3% vs. 67.4%) and less frequently HR−/HER2− (2.1% vs. 10.9%). More MBC was staged as III or IV (24.9% vs. 17.2%). MBC had significantly worse overall survival (OS) than FBC (P < .0001). After adjustment for age, ethnicity, and tumor grade, stage I and II MBC had significantly worse OS time than stage-matched FBC (P = .0011 for stage I, P = .0229 for stage II). When stage- and subtype-matched patients were compared, MBC had significantly worse OS than FBC for stage I overall, for substages IA and IIB HR+/HER2− carcinoma, and for stage III HR+/HER2+ carcinoma. Furthermore, MBC patients with HR+/HER2− T1aN0 carcinomas had worse OS than did FBC patients. Conclusion Patients with MBC have worse survival than patients with FBC, especially for early-stage HR+ breast cancers. More studies are needed optimize treatment for MBC.
IMPORTANCE Rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) have markedly increased but we know little about the influence of surgeons on variability of the procedure in the community. OBJECTIVE To quantify the influence of the attending surgeon on rates of CPM and clinician attitudes that explained it. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this population-based survey study, we identified 7810 women with stages 0 to II breast cancer treated in 2013 to 2015 through the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries of Georgia and Los Angeles County. Surveys were sent approximately 2 months after surgery. Surveys were also sent to 488 attending surgeons identified by the patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES We conducted multilevel analyses to examine the impact of surgeon influence on variations in patient receipt of CPM using information from patient and surgeon surveys merged to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. RESULTS A total of 5080 women responded to the survey (70%response rate), and 377 surgeons responded (77% response rate). The mean (SD) age of responding women was 61.9 (11) years; 28%had an increased risk of second primary cancer, and 16%received CPM. Half of surgeons (52%) practiced for more than 20 years and 30% treated more than 50 new patients with breast cancer annually. Attending surgeon explained a large amount (20%) of the variation in CPM, controlling for patient factors. The odds of a patient receiving CPM increased almost 3-fold (odds ratio, 2.8; 95%CI, 2.1-3.4) if she saw a surgeon with a practice approach 1 SD above a surgeon with the mean CPM rate (independent of age, diagnosis date, BRCA status, and risk of second primary). One-quarter (25%) of the surgeon influence was explained by attending attitudes about initial recommendations for surgery and responses to patient requests for CPM. The estimated rate of CPM was 34%for surgeons who least favored initial breast conservation and were least reluctant to perform CPM vs 4%for surgeons who most favored i nitial breast conservation and were most reluctant to perform CPM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, attending surgeons exerted influence on the likelihood of receipt of CPM after a breast cancer diagnosis. Variations in surgeon attitudes about recommendations for surgery and response to patient requests for CPM explain a substantial amount of this influence.Grant: Funding/Support: Thisworkwas supported by grant P01 CA163233 to the University of Michigan from the National Cancer Institute. The collection of Los Angeles County cancer incidence data used in this studywas supported by the California Department of Public Health pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Program of Cancer Registries, under cooperative agreement 5NU58DP003862-04/DP003862; and the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute. The collection of cancer incidence data in Georgia was supported by contract HHSN261201300015I and Task Order HHSN26100006 from the National Cancer Institute and cooperative agreement 5NU58DP003875-04-00 from the CDC.
Background: Trust in physicians is an essential part of therapeutic relationships. Complications are common after colorectal cancer procedures, but little is known of their effect on patient-surgeon relationships. We hypothesized that unexpected complications impair trust and communication between patients and surgeons.
Methods: We performed a population-based survey of surgically diagnosed stage III colorectal cancer patients in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results registries for Georgia and Metropolitan Detroit between August 2011 and October 2012. Using published survey instruments, we queried subjects about trust in and communication with their surgeon. The primary predictor was the occurrence of an operative complication. We examined patient factors associated with trust and communication then compared the relationship between operative complications and patient-reported trust and communication with their surgeons.
Results: Among 622 preliminary respondents (54% response rate), 25% experienced postoperative complications. Those with complications were less likely to report high trust (73% vs 81%, P =.04) and high-quality communication (80% vs 95%, P <.001). Complications reduced trust among only 4% of patient-surgeon dyads with high-quality communication, whereas complications diminished patients' trust in 50% with poorer communication (P <.001). After controlling for communication ratings, we found there was no residual effect of complications on trust (P =.96).
Conclusion: Most respondents described trust in and communication with their surgeons as high. Complications were common and were associated with lower trust and poorer communication. However, the relationship between complications and trust was modified by communication. Trust remained high, even in the presence of complications, among respondents who reported high levels of patient-centered communication with their surgeons.
Purpose
An examination of multiple primary cancers can provide insight into the etiologic role of genes, the environment, and prior cancer treatment on a cancer patient’s risk of developing a subsequent cancer. Different rules for registering multiple primary cancers (MP) are used by cancer registries throughout the world making data comparisons difficult.
Methods
We evaluated the effect of SEER and IARC/IACR rules on cancer incidence rates and trends using data from the SEER Program. We estimated age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and trends (1975–2011) for the top 26 cancer categories using joinpoint regression analysis.
Results
ASIRs were higher using SEER compared to IARC/IACR rules for all cancers combined (3 %) and, in rank order, melanoma (9 %), female breast (7 %), urinary bladder (6 %), colon (4 %), kidney and renal pelvis (4 %), oral cavity and pharynx (3 %), lung and bronchus (2 %), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2 %). ASIR differences were largest for patients aged 65+ years. Trends were similar using both MP rules with the exception of cancers of the urinary bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis.
Conclusions
The choice of multiple primary coding rules effects incidence rates and trends. Compared to SEER MP coding rules, IARC/IACR rules are less complex, have not changed over time, and report fewer multiple primary cancers, particularly cancers that occur in paired organs, at the same anatomic site and with the same or related histologic type. Cancer registries collecting incidence data using SEER rules may want to consider including incidence rates and trends using IARC/IACR rules to facilitate international data comparisons.
Purpose: We conducted a comparative survival analysis between patients with resected pancreatic cancer who received adjuvant treatment with either gemcitabine- or 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy and chemoradiation regimens.
Patients and methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database was used to identify patients with pancreatic cancer diagnosed from 1998 to 2005 who received curative surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy with either 5-fluorouracil or gemcitabine. These groups were subdivided by treatment with radiotherapy. Patients were followed until death, study end-point or a maximum of 5 years after diagnosis.
Results: Three hundred and fifty-nine patients received 5-fluorouracil and 346 received gemcitabine. Compared with chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil, outcomes for patients who received chemoradiation with gemcitabine did not differ. Patients who received gemcitabine without radiation had increased hazards (poorly differentiated tumours: HR = 1.50, p = 0.01; moderately differentiated tumours, HR = 1.28, p = 0.11). However, outcomes of patients who received 5-fluorouracil without radiation varied with tumour grade. In moderately differentiated tumours, patients had better outcomes with 5-fluorouracil when compared with chemoradiation with 5-fluorouracil (HR = 0.42, p = 0.02). In poorly differentiated tumours, the opposite was true (HR 2.10, p = 0.09).
Conclusion: Patients with low-grade resected pancreatic cancer may have better outcomes with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy without radiation when compared with 5-fluorouracil with radiation.