Search

Aim: To determine whether axillary recurrence reflects inadequate axillary treatment or adverse pathological features., Methods: The case-records were reviewed of 2122 women aged under 75 years, treated for invasive breast cancer during the time-period 1/1/86-31/12/91 in a geographically defined area. Data were abstracted on operations performed, pathological features, post-operative treatments and details of axillary recurrence. The risk of axillary recurrence was examined by pathological, treatment and patient factors., Results: Axillary recurrence was more than twice as likely after inadequate compared to adequate treatment of the axilla (adequate staging or axillary radiotherapy or clearance). Delayed treatment of the axilla was not as successful as adequate primary treatment: multiple axillary recurrences were twice as common, one third of which were uncontrolled at time of death. Inadequate surgical treatment was associated with increased rates of recurrence despite endocrine therapy, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Lymphoedema was twice as common if axillary radiotherapy was combined with any axillary surgical procedure., Conclusions: Axillary recurrence is more common in tumours with adverse pathology but may also result from inadequate axillary treatment. In order to minimise axillary recurrence, optimal treatment of the axilla entails adequate staging (sampling of four or more nodes) and treatment (axillary clearance or radiotherapy and endocrine therapy) in all women.

Background: The assessment of axillary nodal status remains divisive: inaccurate staging may result in untreated axillary disease, and appropriate adjuvant therapy not being delivered. The impact of inadequate axillary treatment on survival remains controversial. We analyse the impact of failure to adequately assess the axillary nodal status on survival., Methods: All women with confirmed breast cancer in a 15-year period were identified, and the original pathology reports examined, and details of radiotherapy obtained. The survival of women by axillary sample size was compared to a reference group of women and corrected for nodal status, tumour size, age, deprivation category and speciality of treating surgeon., Findings: Sampling less than four nodes is associated with a significantly increased risk of death. This cannot be due to understaging the extent of axillary disease nor is fully explainable by differential prescription of adjuvant therapies. We conclude that the survival of the women studied may have been adversely effected by inadequate axillary treatment.

Background: Previous studies have reported an increased risk of cancer with calcium-channel blockers in man. Other work in animals suggests that inhibitors of angiotensin-I-converting enzyme (ACE) protect against cancer. We aimed to assess the risk of cancer in hypertensive patients receiving ACE inhibitors or other antihypertensive drugs., Methods: Our retrospective cohort study was based on the records of 5207 patients who attended the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 1995. The patients' records are linked with the Registrar General Scotland and the West of Scotland Cancer Registry., Findings: Compared with the West of Scotland controls, the relative risks of incident and fatal cancer among the 1559 patients receiving ACE inhibitors were 0.72 (95% CI 0.55-0.92) and 0.65 (0.44-0.93). Among the 3648 patients receiving antihypertensive drugs other than ACE inhibitors (calcium-channel blockers 1416, diuretics 2099, beta-blockers 2681), the corresponding relative risks were 110 (0.97-1.22) and 1.03 (0.87-1.20). The relative risk of cancer was lowest in women on ACE inhibitors: 0.63 (0.41-0.93) for incident cancer; 0.48 (0.23-0.88) for fatal cancer; and 0.37 (0.12-0.87) for female-specific cancers. The reduced relative risk of cancer in patients on ACE inhibitors was greatest with follow-up of longer than 3 years. Calcium-channel blockers, diuretics, and beta-blockers had no apparent effect on risk of cancer., Interpretation: Long-term use of ACE inhibitors may protect against cancer. The status of this finding is more that of hypothesis generation than of hypothesis testing; randomised controlled trials are needed.

A review of the literature was carried out covering the last 25 years (1970 to 1995) by searching through the MEDLINE and manually. The review consists of two companion parts. The first includes studies of quality of life in lung cancer patients in general, while the second part is restricted to defined samples of small and non-small cell lung cancer patients. Excluding non-English and review articles, in total 151 citations were identified and all have been reviewed. Over 50 instruments were used to measure quality of life in lung cancer studies. Of these, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Lung Cancer Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-LC13) in conjunction with the core cancer questionnaire (QLQ-C30) was found to be the best developed instrument, although there were two other lung cancer-specific measures with good reliability and validity. Several topics in this chapter have been highlighted, including the importance of regularly measuring quality of life in lung cancer patients. Progress and achievements in areas such as performance status as a proxy of quality of life measure, psychological morbidity and symptom distress as predictive factors of quality of survival, and communication problems in quality of life studies of lung cancer patients have been emphasized and their implications in lung cancer care discussed. It is argued that palliation of symptoms, psychosocial interventions, and understanding patients' feelings and concerns all contribute to improving quality of life in lung cancer patients. It is concluded that the future challenge in treatment of lung cancer lies not only in improving the survival, but mainly the patients' quality of life regardless of cell type. Clinical trial and epidemiologic population-based outcome studies are recommended to provide this and to allow a better understanding of the contribution of the socioeconomic characteristics of the patients to their pretreatment and posttreatment quality of life.

The causes of geographical differences in cancer survival among regions of the UK are unclear. Population-based audit of management of patients with non-seminomatous germ-cell tumours (NSGCT) in the west of Scotland enabled us to assess the relative contributions to outcome of recognised prognostic factors, treatment centre, and protocol treatment. Data on treatment and outcome were analysed for 440 (97%) of 454 men with NSGCT diagnosed between 1975 and 1989. All but 11 patients were treated at tertiary referral centres; 235 were treated at a single unit (unit 1) and 194 at four other units (2-5). 99 men have died, 89 (20%) from NSGCT. Independent prognostic factors for NSGCT survival were extent of tumour at diagnosis (p < 0.001), 5-year period of diagnosis (from 1975-79 to 1985-89, p < 0.001), and treatment unit (unit 1 vs units 2-5, p < 0.001). Unit 1, which had the best survival rates, treated most patients overall (53%), including the majority (70%) in the worst prognostic category (poor-prognosis metastatic disease). The proportion of men receiving nationally agreed protocol treatment was higher at unit 1 than elsewhere (97 vs 61%, p < 0.0001). However, analysis restricted to men who received protocol treatment, adjusted for other important prognostic variables, still showed a survival advantage for this unit (relative death rate units 2-5 vs unit 1, 2.82 [95% CI 1.53-5.19], p < 0.001). These findings suggest that centralisation of treatment for NSGCT improves outcome; the benefit seems to be additional to any advantage resulting from protocol treatment.