Search

Background: With advancing therapeutics, lung cancer (LC) survivors are rapidly increasing in number. Although mounting evidence suggests LC survivors have high risk of second primary lung cancer (SPLC), there is no validated prediction model available for clinical use to identify high-risk LC survivors for SPLC., Methods: Using data from 6325 ever-smokers in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) study diagnosed with initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1993-2017, we developed a prediction model for 10-year SPLC risk after IPLC diagnosis using cause-specific Cox regression. We evaluated the model's clinical utility using decision curve analysis and externally validated it using 2 population-based data-Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) and National Lung Screening Trial (NLST)-that included 2963 and 2844 IPLC (101 and 93 SPLC cases), respectively., Results: Over 14 063 person-years, 145 (2.3%) ever-smoking IPLC patients developed SPLC in MEC. Our prediction model demonstrated a high predictive accuracy (Brier score = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4 to 3.3) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristics [AUC] = 81.9%, 95% CI = 78.2% to 85.5%) based on bootstrap validation in MEC. Stratification by the estimated risk quartiles showed that the observed SPLC incidence was statistically significantly higher in the 4th vs 1st quartile (9.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001). Decision curve analysis indicated that in a wide range of 10-year risk thresholds from 1% to 20%, the model yielded a larger net-benefit vs hypothetical all-screening or no-screening scenarios. External validation using PLCO and NLST showed an AUC of 78.8% (95% CI = 74.6% to 82.9%) and 72.7% (95% CI = 67.7% to 77.7%), respectively., Conclusions: We developed and validated a SPLC prediction model based on large population-based cohorts. The proposed prediction model can help identify high-risk LC patients for SPLC and can be incorporated into clinical decision making for SPLC surveillance and screening., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Lung cancer survivors are at high risk of developing a second primary lung cancer (SPLC). However, SPLC risk factors have not been established and the impact of tobacco smoking remains controversial. We examined the risk factors for SPLC across multiple epidemiologic cohorts and evaluated the impact of smoking cessation on reducing SPLC risk., Methods: We analyzed data from 7059 participants in the Multiethnic Cohort (MEC) diagnosed with an initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) between 1993 and 2017. Cause-specific proportional hazards models estimated SPLC risk. We conducted validation studies using the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (N = 3423 IPLC cases) and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (N = 4731 IPLC cases) cohorts and pooled the SPLC risk estimates using random effects meta-analysis., Results: Overall, 163 MEC cases (2.3%) developed SPLC. Smoking pack-years (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.18 per 10 pack-years, p < 0.001) and smoking intensity (HR = 1.30 per 10 cigarettes per day, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased SPLC risk. Individuals who met the 2013 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's screening criteria at IPLC diagnosis also had an increased SPLC risk (HR = 1.92; p < 0.001). Validation studies with the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial and European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition revealed consistent results. Meta-analysis yielded pooled HRs of 1.16 per 10 pack-years (p meta < 0.001), 1.25 per 10 cigarettes per day (p meta < 0.001), and 1.99 (p meta < 0.001) for meeting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's criteria. In MEC, smoking cessation after IPLC diagnosis was associated with an 83% reduction in SPLC risk (HR = 0.17; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Tobacco smoking is a risk factor for SPLC. Smoking cessation may reduce the risk of SPLC. Additional strategies for SPLC surveillance and screening are warranted., (Copyright © 2021 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)

Background: Colonoscopy follow-up recommendations depend on the presence or absence of polyps, and if found, their number, size, and histology. Patients may be responsible for conveying results between primary and specialty care or providing medical information to family members; thus, accurate reporting is critical. This analysis assessed the accuracy of self-reported colonoscopy findings., Methods: 3,986 participants from the Study of Colonoscopy Utilization, an ancillary study nested within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Screening Trial, were included. Self-reports of polyp and adenoma were compared to medical records, and measures of sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Correlates of accurate self-report of polyp were assessed using logistic regression and weighted to account for study sampling., Results: The sensitivity and specificity of self-reported polyp findings were 88% and 85%, respectively, and for adenoma 11% and 99%, respectively. Among participants with a polyp, older age was associated with lower likelihood while polyp severity and non-white race were associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among participants without a polyp, having multiple colonoscopies was associated with lower likelihood while family history of colorectal cancer was associated with increased likelihood of accurate recall. Among both groups, longer time since colonoscopy was associated with lower likelihood of accurate recall., Conclusions: Participants recalled with reasonable accuracy whether they had a prior polyp; however, recall of histology, specifically adenoma, was much less accurate., Impact: Identification of strategies to increase accurate self-report of colonic polyps are needed, particularly for patient-provider communications and patient reporting of results to family members., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: We determined the modified Gleason grade of prostatic adenocarcinomas detected in PLCO to assess grade distribution and compare modified Gleason grades of cancer detected in the intervention arm (organized annual screening) vs the control arm (opportunistic screening)., Materials and Methods: Modified Gleason grading was performed in 859 radical prostatectomy cases by a single urological pathologist. We compared the proportion of cases with high grade disease in the screened arm vs the control arm by logistic regression analysis., Results: In the intervention arm a modified Gleason score of 5, 6, 7 (3+4), 7 (4+3), 8, 9 and 10 was assigned in 3.6%, 43.3%, 39%, 7.4%, 3.5%, 3.2% and 0.1% of cases, respectively. In the control arm a modified Gleason score of 5, 6, 7 (3+4), 7 (4+3), 8, 9 and 10 was assigned in 3.0%, 35.7%, 46.4%, 7.1%, 5.4%, 1.9% and 0.5% of cases, respectively, after correcting for high grade disease over sampling. A high grade modified Gleason score of 7 or greater was detected in 53% of cases in the intervention arm vs 61.3% in the control arm after correction (p=0.019). The median modified Gleason score was 7 (3+4) in each arm., Conclusions: A significant percent of cancers in each arm had a component of high grade disease. The modified Gleason grade of prostate cancers detected by organized annual screening was slightly lower than the modified grade of those detected by opportunistic screening. This is an expected consequence of more intensive screening., (Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies have shown an inverse relationship between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration and body mass index (BMI). It has been recently proposed that this relationship may be explained by the larger plasma volume of obese men diluting a fixed amount of PSA (hemodilution effect). We examined this hypothesis in a cohort of men enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial., Methods: Of 38,349 men ages 55 to 74 years randomized in PLCO to receive annual PSA and digital rectal examination screening, 28,380 had a baseline PSA, complete demographic information, and no prostate cancer diagnosis within 6 years from baseline. Self-reported height and weight were used to calculate BMI and to estimate plasma volume. PSA mass was estimated as PSA concentration times plasma volume. Multivariable linear regression models were used to investigate the relationship between PSA concentration, plasma volume, PSA mass, and BMI., Results: PSA concentration significantly decreased with increasing BMI (P<0.001); mean PSA values were 1.27, 1.25, 1.18, and 1.07 ng/mL among normal (BMI, 18.5-25), overweight (BMI, 25-30), obese (BMI, 30-35), and morbidly obese (BMI, >35) men, respectively. However, plasma volume also increased with increasing BMI and PSA mass showed no association with BMI, with mean values of 3.78, 3.95, 3.97, and 3.82 microg across the four BMI categories (P=0.10)., Conclusions: This study confirms earlier findings that the inverse relationship between PSA concentration and BMI may be explained by a hemodilution effect. These findings could have implications for prostate cancer screening in large men.

Objective: To describe the results of the first four rounds (T0-T3) of prostate cancer screening in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial (designed to determine the value of screening in the four cancers), that for prostate cancer is evaluating whether annual screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and a digital rectal examination (DRE) reduces prostate cancer-specific mortality., Subjects and Methods: In all, 38 349 men aged 55-74 years were randomized to undergo annual screening with PSA (abnormal >4.0 ng/mL) and a DRE. The follow-up of abnormal screening results was at the discretion of subjects' physicians. PLCO staff obtained records related to diagnostic follow-up of positive screen results., Results: Compliance with screening decreased slightly from 89% at baseline to 85% at T3. Both PSA positivity rates (range 7.7-8.8% at T0-T3) and DRE positivity rates (range 6.8-7.6% at T0-T3) were relatively constant over time. The positive predictive value (PPV) of a PSA level of >4.0 ng/mL decreased from 17.9% at T0 to 10.4-12.3% at T1-T3; the PPV for DRE (in the absence of a positive PSA test) was constant over time (2.9-3.6%). Cancer was diagnosed in 1902 men (4.9%). Screen-detected cancers at T0 (549) were more likely to be clinical stage III/IV (5.8%) and to have a Gleason score of 7-10 (34%) than screen-detected cancers at T1-T3 (1.5-4.2% stage III/IV and 24-27% Gleason score 7-10 among 1054 cases)., Conclusion: The present findings on serial prostate screening are similar to those reported from other multi-round screening studies. Determining the effect of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality awaits further follow-up.