Second primary malignancy among malignant solid tumor survivors aged 85 years and older

Zhang, Zhenyu; Liu, Fei; Qu, Yanlin; Li, Qiu; Zhang, Liqun; Yang, Qiao

doi:10.1038/s41598-021-99260-6

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(26 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Digital cancer registration can be affected by several issues [ 15 , 16 ], including: i) the availability of reliable/detailed primary medical records; ii) the use of new diagnostic tests (such as molecular cancer profiling); iii) changes to diagnostic protocols (e.g., including the propensity to lower the number of invasive cancer assessments, i.e., histology); iv) new trends in cancer patient management (e.g., more outpatient treatments instead of inpatient care); v) the scattering of clinical data among different archives; and vi) an increasing amount of data to collect, resulting in a “big data” dimension [ 17 ]. The health care system where DPs are applied is also a crucial variable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality control on digital cancer registration

Guzzinati¹,

Battagello²,

Bovo³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Population-based cancer registration methods are subject to internationally-established rules. To ensure efficient and effective case recording, population-based cancer registries widely adopt digital processing (DP) methods. At the Veneto Tumor Registry (RTV), about 50% of all digitally-identified (putative) cases of cancer are further profiled by means of registrars’ assessments (RAs). Taking these RAs for reference, the present study examines how well the registry’s DP performs. A series of 1,801 (putative) incident and prevalent cancers identified using DP methods were randomly assigned to two experienced registrars (blinded to the DP output), who independently re-assessed every case. This study focuses on the concordance between the DP output and the RAs as concerns cancer status (incident versus prevalent), topography, and morphology. The RAs confirmed the cancer status emerging from DP for 1,266/1,317 incident cancers (positive predictive value [PPV] = 96.1%) and 460/472 prevalent cancers (PPV = 97.5%). This level of concordance ranks as “optimal”, with a Cohen’s K value of 0.91. The overall prevalence of false-positive cancer cases identified by DP was 2.9%, and was affected by the number of digital variables available. DP and the RAs were consistent in identifying cancer topography in 88.7% of cases; differences concerned different sites within the same anatomo-functional district (according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC]) in 9.6% of cases. In short, using DP for cancer case registration suffers from only trivial inconsistencies. The efficiency and reliability of digital cancer registration is influenced by the availability of good-quality clinical information, and the regular interdisciplinary monitoring of a registry’s DP performance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…resulting in a "big data" dimension [17]. The health care system where DPs are applied is also a crucial variable.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Quality control on digital cancer registration

Guzzinati¹,

Battagello²,

Bovo³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No literature focuses on the management of metachronous multiple primaries. Individual therapy considering both the FPM and SPM are recommend, preferably by a multidisciplinary team 5 , 12 . Specifically, the histology type of each malignancy, the stage of the disease, the patient’s overall health status, whether the SPM could be treated with curative intent, prior treatment regime for FPM, possible complications, carcinogenic factors that can be managed should be taken into consideration 12 , 13 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our previous work 5 provided a general overview of the comprehensive epidemiology profile of SPMs in this population, but specific cancer types were not included in this research. To our best knowledge, no study focuses on the SPM occurrence in the oldest old with specific cancer types.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiological analysis of second primary malignant neoplasms in cancer survivors aged 85 years and older: a SEER data analysis (1975–2016)

Zhao¹,

Zhang²,

Bai³

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cancer burden in patients aged 85 years and older has rapidly increased accompanying the decrease in mortality, which is raising the concern of developing second primary malignant neoplasms (SPM). This study aimed to investigate the epidemiology of the SPM in this population in the US by using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database (1975–2016). The cumulative incidence of developing a SPM was calculated by the Fine and Gray model. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) were calculated via Poisson regression. The relative post-SPM survival rate was calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Male patients with skin melanoma, kidney and renal pelvis and urinary bladder cancers had high cumulative incidences (15.32%, 13.55%, and 12.26%, respectively) and increased SIRs (1.47, 1.44, and 1.16, respectively) for developing SPMs. Female patients with skin melanoma and urinary bladder cancers had high cumulative incidences (10.18% and 7.87%, respectively) and increased SIRs (1.34 and 1.18, respectively). In general, the incidence of SPM cases increased over time. The median latency ranged from 17 to 37 months. A less than 50% of patients had 1-year post-SPM survival. In conclusion, some of these patients had an increased risk of the SPM, with poor survival.

show abstract

“…In recent years, as many as two to five primary cancers have been reported in a single case[ 2 - 5 ]. However, double primary MPMTs are more common[ 6 , 7 ]. This study investigated the combined association between second primary cancer and first primary cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High incidence combination of multiple primary malignant tumors of the digestive system

Yang¹,

Zhang²,

Xue³

et al. 2022

World J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Clinical reports of multiple primary malignant tumors (MPMTs) in the digestive system are increasing. In China, although the survival rate of patients with MPMTs is increasing, the quality of life is very low. Many patients have reached the advanced stage when the second primary tumor is found, resulting in no early intervention and treatment. This is due to the misunderstanding of MPMTs by clinicians, who treat such tumors as metastases. Therefore, before a patient has a second primary tumor, doctors should understand some common combinations of digestive system MPMTs to provide clinical guidance to the patient. AIM To explore the high incidence combination of digestive system MPMTs under heterochronism and synchronization. METHODS A total of 1902 patients with MPMTs at Peking Union Medical College Hospital were analyzed retrospectively. They were divided into metachronous MPMT and synchronous MPMT groups, and then the high incidence combinations of the first primary cancer and the second primary cancer in metachronous cancer and synchronous cancer were sorted. Sex and age differences between metachronous and synchronous tumors were tested by the chi square test and t test, respectively. A P value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant, and SPSS version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS Among the 1902 patients with MPMTs confirmed by pathology, 1811 (95.2%) cases were secondary primary cancers, 89 (4.7%) cases were tertiary primary cancers, and 2 (0.1%) cases were quaternary primary cancers. Most (88.2%) of the secondary primary cancers were identified as metachronous multiple primary cancers six months after diagnosis of the first primary cancer. The top ten most common MPMTs in the first primary cancer group ranged from high to low as follows: Breast cancer, thyroid cancer, nonuterine cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, kidney cancer, uterine cancer, bladder cancer, rectal cancer, and gastric cancer. The highest incidence rate of the first primary cancer in male metachronous cancer was lung cancer (11.6%), the highest incidence rate of the second primary cancer was still lung cancer (24.9%), the highest incidence rate of the first primary cancer in female metachronous cancer was breast cancer (32.7%), and the highest incidence rate of the second primary cancer was lung cancer (20.8%). Among them, breast cancer, nonuterine cancer and uterine cancer were female-specific malignant tumor types, and thyroid cancer also accounted for 79.6% of female patients. The top five metachronous cancer combinations, independent of female-specific malignant tumor types and thyroid cancer, were colon cancer and lung cancer (26 cases), kidney cancer and lung cancer (25 cases), rectal cancer and lung cancer (20 cases), gastric cancer and lung cancer (17 cases), and bladder cancer and lung cance...

show abstract

Second primary malignancy among malignant solid tumor survivors aged 85 years and older

Cited by 5 publications

References 21 publications

Quality control on digital cancer registration

Quality control on digital cancer registration

Epidemiological analysis of second primary malignant neoplasms in cancer survivors aged 85 years and older: a SEER data analysis (1975–2016)

High incidence combination of multiple primary malignant tumors of the digestive system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About