Martin J. Edelman, Crystal S. Denlinger, Eric A. Ross and Margaret von Mehren
Lisa I. Iezzoni, Sowmya R. Rao, Nicole D. Agaronnik and Areej El-Jawahri
Background: Approximately 61 million Americans have a disability. Little research has explored whether disability is associated with subsequent diagnosis of cancer, the second-leading cause of death in the United States. The objective of this study was to explore associations between cancer and disability, focusing on 4 cancers that may present with nonspecific symptoms that could be conflated with aspects of disability, thus delaying cancer diagnoses. An analysis of a nationally representative survey using sampling weights to produce national estimates was performed. Methods: Civilian, noninstitutionalized US residents responding to the 2010–2017 National Health Interview Surveys totaling 259,392 Sample Adult Core survey respondents were included. We used self-reported functional status limitations to identify persons with movement difficulties (MD), complex activity limitations (CAL), and no disability. Multivariable regressions predicting cancer diagnosis included sociodemographic characteristics, tobacco use, body mass index, access to care indicators, and disability status. Results: Persons with preexisting disability had significantly higher rates of cancer (ranging from 0.40 [SE, 0.05] for ovarian to 3.38 [0.14] for prostate) than did those without disability (0.20 [0.02] and 1.26 [0.04] for the same cancers; all P<.0001). Multivariable analyses found strong associations of preexisting MD and CAL with colorectal cancer, with adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2–1.9) and 1.9 (1.5–2.4), respectively. For non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the aOR for CAL was 1.5 (1.1–2.1). For prostate cancer, aORs for MD were 1.2 (1.0–1.3) and 1.1 (1.0–1.3) for CAL. Using cross-sectional survey data, we could only identify statistical associations, not causality. Conclusions: Our population-based analyses suggest that persons with disability may constitute a high-risk population, with higher cancer incidence. Optimizing appropriate screening and fully investigating new signs and symptoms are therefore critical for patients with disability.
Min Huang, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Jing Zhao, Amin Haiderali, Javier Cortes, Scott Ramsey, Andrew Briggs, Vassiliki Karantza, Gursel Aktan, Cynthia Z. Qi, Chenyang Gu, Jipan Xie, Muhan Yuan, John Cook, Michael Untch, Peter Schmid and Peter A. Fasching
Background: Pathologic complete response (pCR) is a common efficacy endpoint in neoadjuvant therapy trials for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Previous studies have shown that pCR is strongly associated with improved long-term survival outcomes, including event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). However, the trial-level associations between treatment effect on pCR and long-term survival outcomes are not well established. This study sought to evaluate these associations by incorporating more recent clinical trials in TNBC. Methods: A literature review identified published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neoadjuvant therapy for TNBC that reported results for both pCR and EFS/OS. Meta-regression models were performed to evaluate the association of treatment effect on pCR and EFS/OS. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of divergent study designs. Results: Ten comparisons from 8 RCTs (N=2,478 patients) were identified from the literature review. The log (odds ratio) of pCR was a significant predictor of the log (hazard ratio) of EFS (P=.003), with a coefficient of determination of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.41–0.95). There was a weaker association between pCR and OS (P=.18), with a coefficient of determination of 0.24 (95% CI, 0.01–0.77). Consistent results were found in the exploratory analysis and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: This is the first study that has shown a trial-level association between pCR and survival outcomes in TNBC. By incorporating the most up-to-date RCTs, this study showed a significant trial-level association between pCR and EFS. A positive association between pCR and OS was also recorded.
Aliza Gardenswartz and Mitchell S. Cairo
Although children, adolescents, and young adults with newly diagnosed B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma enjoy excellent overall survival with current chemoimmunotherapy, those with relapsed and/or refractory disease have a dismal prognosis. Although most clinicians would agree that hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation after reinduction therapy is frontline therapy for these patients, there is no consensus as to what type of hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation promises the best event-free and overall survival. This review outlines the disparate types of stem cell therapy that have been used in this difficult-to-treat population as well as the role of maintenance and CAR T-cell therapy in conjunction with stem cell therapy.
Donglai Chen, Chang Chen, Junmiao Wen and Yongbing Chen
Junmiao Wen and Donglai Chen
Danielle S. Graham, Mykola Onyshchenko, Mark A. Eckardt, Benjamin J. DiPardo, Sriram Venigalla, Scott D. Nelson, Bartosz Chmielowski, Arun S. Singh, Jacob E. Shabason, Fritz C. Eilber and Anusha Kalbasi
Background: There is conflicting evidence regarding the role of chemotherapy for high-grade soft tissue sarcoma (STS) in adults. We sought to characterize patterns of chemotherapy use, including multiagent and neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in the United States. Patients and Methods: Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 19,969 adult patients who underwent surgical resection for primary high-grade STS from 2004 to 2016. Using logistic regression, we examined factors associated with overall, multiagent, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Results: Chemotherapy was administered to 22% (n=4,377) of the study population. Among patients treated using chemotherapy, 85% received multiagent treatment and 47% received neoadjuvant treatment. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with chemotherapy use included tumor size, depth, histology, and primary site; receipt of radiation treatment; younger age; higher patient income; and academic treatment facility. Factors associated with multiagent chemotherapy use included tumor histology, tumor primary site, and younger age. Factors associated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy use included tumor size, depth, margin status, and primary site; receipt of radiation treatment; higher patient income; academic treatment facility type; and distance to treatment facility. Treatment at a high-volume facility was the only factor associated with overall, multiagent, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. No significant temporal trend was seen in overall, multiagent, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy use. Conclusions: Overall chemotherapy use was low (22%). The variability in chemotherapy use was driven by clinical, patient, demographic, and facility factors. Among patients treated with chemotherapy, the use of multiagent chemotherapy was high (85%), and nearly half received neoadjuvant therapy. There was a discrepancy in the use of chemotherapy—including neoadjuvant and multiagent chemotherapy—between high- and low-volume treatment centers.