Search

Background With aging of the population and improvements in diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care, the number of cancer survivors in the United States has increased; updated prevalence estimates are needed. Methods Cancer prevalence on January 1, 2022, was estimated using the Prevalence Incidence Approach Model, utilizing incidence, survival, and mortality. Prevalence by age decade, sex, and time from diagnosis was calculated. The percentage of cancer survivors in the projected US population by age and sex was calculated as the ratio of the sex-specific projected prevalence to the sex-specific projected US population. Results There were an estimated 18.1 million US cancer survivors as of January 1, 2022. From 2022 to 2030, the number of US cancer survivors is projected to increase to 21.6 million; by 2040, the number is projected to be 26 million. Long-term survivors are highly prevalent; in 2022, 70% of cancer survivors had lived 5 years or more after diagnosis, and 11% of cancer survivors had lived 25 years or more after diagnosis. Among all US females aged 40-54 years, 3.6% were cancer survivors; among females aged 65-74 years, 14.5% were cancer survivors; among females aged 85 years and older, 36.4% were cancer survivors. Among all US males aged 40-54 years, 2.1% were cancer survivors; among males aged 65-74 years, 16% were cancer survivors; and among those aged 85 years and older, 48.3% were cancer survivors. Conclusions Cancer survivors are growing in number. In the United States, most cancer survivors are long-term and very long-term survivors, representing a substantial proportion of the US population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Semiparametric transformation models for failure time data consist of a parametric regression component and an unspecified cumulative baseline hazard. The nonparametric maximum likelihood estimator (NPMLE) of the cumulative baseline hazard can be summarized in terms of weights introduced into a Breslow-type estimator (Weighted Breslow). At any given time point, the weights invoke an integral over the future of the cumulative baseline hazard, which presents theoretical and computational challenges. A simpler non-MLE Breslow-type estimator (Breslow) was derived earlier from a martingale estimating equation (MEE) setting observed and expected counts of failures equal, conditional on the past history. Despite much successful theoretical and computational development, the simpler Breslow estimator continues to be commonly used as a compromise between simplicity and perceived loss of full efficiency. In this paper we derive the relative efficiency of the Breslow estimator and consider the properties of the two estimators using simulations and real data on prostate cancer survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to estimate the number of individuals living with metastatic breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, or bladder cancer or metastatic melanoma in the United States using population-based data.Methods: A back-calculation method was used to estimate the number of individuals living with metastatic cancer for each cancer type from US cancer mortality and survival statistics from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries. The percentages of those living with metastatic cancer who advanced to metastatic disease from early stage cancer vs who were diagnosed with metastatic cancer de novo were calculated. One- and 5-year relative survival rates for de novo metastatic cancer were compared by year of diagnosis to assess time trends in survival.Results: It is estimated that, in 2018, 623 405 individuals were living with metastatic breast, prostate, lung, colorectal, or bladder cancer, or metastatic melanoma in the United States. This number is expected to increase to 693 452 in 2025. In 2018, the percentage of metastatic cancer survivors who were initially diagnosed with early stage cancer and advanced to metastatic cancer ranged from 30% for lung cancer to 72% for bladder cancer.Conclusions: This study demonstrates increasing numbers of individuals living with metastatic cancer of the 6 most common cancer types in the United States. This information is critical for informing the allocation of research efforts and healthcare infrastructure needed to address the needs of these individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States due to the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate triennially to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries, vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics, and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Database are presented for the most prevalent cancer types by race, and cancer‐related and treatment‐related side‐effects are also briefly described. More than 18 million Americans (8.3 million males and 9.7 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2022. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,523,230), melanoma of the skin (760,640), and colon and rectum (726,450) among males and breast (4,055,770), uterine corpus (891,560), and thyroid (823,800) among females. More than one‐half (53%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and two‐thirds (67%) were aged 65 years or older. One of the largest racial disparities in treatment is for rectal cancer, for which 41% of Black patients with stage I disease receive proctectomy or proctocolectomy compared to 66% of White patients. Surgical receipt is also substantially lower among Black patients with non‐small cell lung cancer, 49% for stages I‐II and 16% for stage III versus 55% and 22% for White patients, respectively. These treatment disparities are exacerbated by the fact that Black patients continue to be less likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease than White patients for most cancers, with some of the largest disparities for female breast (53% vs 68%) and endometrial (59% vs 73%). Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence‐based strategies and equitable access to available resources are needed to mitigate disparities for communities of color and optimize care for people with a history of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72:409‐436. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Timing Of Androgen Deprivation (TOAD) trial found an overall survival benefit for immediate vs delayed androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)–relapsed or noncurable prostate cancer. However, broad eligibility criteria allowed entry of a heterogeneous participant group, including those with prior ADT exposure, raising concerns about subsequent androgen sensitivity. For these reasons, we completed previously specified subgroup analyses to assess if prior ADT was associated with ADT timing efficacy after PSA relapse. Methods We examined TOAD trial patient-level data for participants with PSA relapse after local therapy. We performed Kaplan-Meier analyses for overall survival stratified by prior ADT and randomized treatment arm (immediate or delayed ADT). We compared group characteristics using Mann-Whitney U and Fisher exact tests. All hypothesis tests were 2-sided. Results We identified 261 patients with PSA relapse, 125 of whom received prior ADT. Patients with prior ADT had higher PSA at presentation (12.1 vs 9.0 ng/mL; P  < .001), more cT3 disease (38.4% vs 25.0%; P  =.007), and more likely received radiotherapy as local treatment (80.0% vs 47.8%; P  < .001) but were otherwise similar to patients without prior ADT exposure. Within this prior ADT group, those who received immediate ADT (n = 56) had improved overall survival compared with those who received delayed ADT (n = 69; P  = .02). This benefit was not observed in the group with no prior ADT (P  = .98). Conclusions The survival benefit demonstrated in the TOAD trial may be driven by patients who received ADT prior to trial entry. We provide possible explanations for this finding with implications for treatment of PSA-relapsed prostate cancer and future study planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine the long-term natural history of size change in SBRT-treated HCC to identify an imaging biomarker to help assess treatment response. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of consecutive HCCs treated with SBRT from January 2008 to December 2016 with either 2 years post-treatment MRI follow-up or post-treatment resection histology. Size, major features for HCC, and mRECIST and LI-RADS v.2018 treatment response criteria were assessed at each post-treatment MRI. Local progression, distant progression, and survival were modeled with Kaplan Meier analyses. Results: 56 HCCs met inclusion criteria. Mean baseline HCC diameter was 30 mm (range: 9–105 mm). At 3 months, 76% (N = 43) of treated HCCs decreased in size (mean reduction: 8 mm, range: 5–99 mm) and 0% (N = 0) increased in size. By 24 months, 11% (N = 5) had increased in size and were considered local progression. APHE remained in 77% (43/56) at 3 months, 38% (19/50) at 12 months, and 23% (11/47) at 24 months. mRECIST-defined viable disease was observed in 77% (43/56) at 3 months and 20% (9/47) at 24 months. LI-RADS v.2018 criteria identified viable or equivocal disease in 0% at 3 months and 10% (5/47) at 24 months. Conclusion: Gradual loss of APHE and slow decrease in size are normal findings in HCCs treated with SBRT, and persistent APHE does not indicate viable disease. mRECIST is not accurate in the assessment of HCC after SBRT due to an overreliance on APHE to define viable disease. Increasing mass size or new nodular APHE at the treatment site may indicate local progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose was to validate 90Y PET gradient-based tumor segmentation in phantoms and to evaluate the impact of the segmentation method on reported tumor absorbed dose (AD) and biological effective dose (BED) in 90Y microsphere radioembolization (RE) patients. A semi-automated gradient-based method was applied to phantoms and patient tumors on the 90Y PET with the initial bounding volume for gradient detection determined from a registered diagnostic CT or MR; this PET-based segmentation (PS) was compared with radiologist-defined morphologic segmentation (MS) on CT or MRI. AD and BED volume histogram metrics (D90, D70, mean) were calculated using both segmentations and concordance/correlations were investigated. Spatial concordance was assessed using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and mean distance to agreement (MDA). PS was repeated to assess intra-observer variability.Results: In phantoms, PS demonstrated high accuracy in lesion volumes (within 15%), AD metrics (within 11%), high spatial concordance relative to morphologic segmentation (DSC > 0.86 and MDA < 1.5 mm), and low intra-observer variability (DSC > 0.99, MDA < 0.2 mm, AD/BED metrics within 2%). For patients (58 lesions), spatial concordance between PS and MS was degraded compared to in-phantom (average DSC = 0.54, average MDA = 4.8 mm); the average mean tumor AD was 226 ± 153 and 197 ± 138 Gy, respectively for PS and MS. For patient AD metrics, the best Pearson correlation (r) and concordance correlation coefficient (ccc) between segmentation methods was found for mean AD (r = 0.94, ccc = 0.92), but worsened as the metric approached the minimum dose (for D90, r = 0.77, ccc = 0.69); BED metrics exhibited a similar trend. Patient PS showed low intra-observer variability (average DSC = 0.81, average MDA = 2.2 mm, average AD/BED metrics within 3.0%).Conclusions: 90Y PET gradient-based segmentation led to accurate/robust results in phantoms, and showed high concordance with MS for reporting mean tumor AD/BED in patients. However, tumor coverage metrics such as D90 exhibited worse concordance between segmentation methods, highlighting the need to standardize segmentation methods when reporting AD/BED metrics from post-therapy 90Y PET. Estimated differences in reported AD/BED metrics due to segmentation method will be useful for interpreting RE dosimetry results in the literature including tumor response data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]