Gender disparities in lung cancer survival from an enriched Florida population-based cancer registry

Early Mortality After Curative-intent Radiotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer-A Population-based Cohort Study

AIMS

In patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC), curative-intent radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is associated with considerable toxicity, and approximately half of the patients die within two years. A better understanding of early mortality is needed to improve patient selection and guide supportive interventions. In this population-based, nationwide cohort study, we investigated the incidence, temporal distribution, and risk factors of early mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with stage II-III NSCLC treated with curative-intent RT/CRT in Denmark from 2010-2017 were included. Patients treated with preoperative or postoperative RT/CRT or stereotactic body radiation therapy were excluded. Early mortality was defined as all-cause death within 180 days from RT/CRT initiation. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the impact of clinical and demographic variables.

RESULTS

We included 1742 patients. The early mortality rate was 10%. The temporal distribution of deaths was uniform across the first year following RT/CRT, indicating the absence of a high-risk period. In multivariable analysis, increasing age and performance status, male sex, and unspecified histology (NSCLC not otherwise specified) were associated with an increased risk. By contrast, the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), TNM stage, and treatment period did not significantly alter the risk of early mortality. Overall survival rates improved throughout the inclusion period but early mortality rates did not.

CONCLUSION

No high-risk period for early mortality could be identified. Early mortality was not associated with CCI and other tools should be explored to quantify comorbidity for risk stratification in this setting.

A Critical Review on the Role of Probiotics in Lung Cancer Biology and Prognosis

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), it ranks as the second most prevalent type of cancer globally. Recent findings have highlighted bidirectional gut-lung interactions, known as the gut-lung axis, in the pathophysiology of lung cancer. Probiotics are live microorganisms that boost host immunity when consumed adequately. The immunoregulatory mechanisms of probiotics are thought to operate through the generation of various metabolites that impact both the gut and distant organs (e.g., the lungs) through blood. Several randomized controlled trials have highlighted the pivotal role of probiotics in gut health especially for the prevention and treatment of malignancies, with a specific emphasis on lung cancer. Current research indicates that probiotic supplementation positively affects patients, leading to a suppression in cancer symptoms and a shortened disease course. While clinical trials validate the therapeutic benefits of probiotics, their precise mechanism of action remains unclear. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the present landscape of probiotics in the management of lung cancer.

What health inequalities exist in access to, outcomes from and experience of treatment for lung cancer? A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer (LC) continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths and while there have been significant improvements in overall survival, this gain is not equally distributed. To address health inequalities (HIs), it is vital to identify whether and where they exist. This paper reviews existing literature on what HIs impact LC care and where these manifest on the care pathway.

DESIGN

A systematic scoping review based on Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases (EMBASE, HMIC, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed) were used to retrieve articles.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Search limits were set to retrieve articles published between January 2012 and April 2022. Papers examining LC along with domains of HI were included. Two authors screened papers and independently assessed full texts.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

HIs were categorised according to: (a) HI domains: Protected Characteristics (PC); Socioeconomic and Deprivation Factors (SDF); Geographical Region (GR); Vulnerable or Socially Excluded Groups (VSG); and (b) where on the LC pathway (access to, outcomes from, experience of care) inequalities manifest. Data were extracted by two authors and collated in a spreadsheet for structured analysis and interpretation.

RESULTS

41 papers were included. The most studied domain was PC (32/41), followed by SDF (19/41), GR (18/41) and VSG (13/41). Most studies investigated differences in access (31/41) or outcomes (27/41), with few (4/41) exploring experience inequalities. Evidence showed race, rural residence and being part of a VSG impacted the access to LC diagnosis, treatment and supportive care. Additionally, rural residence, older age or male sex negatively impacted survival and mortality. The relationship between outcomes and other factors (eg, race, deprivation) showed mixed results.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings offer an opportunity to reflect on the understanding of HIs in LC care and provide a platform to consider targeted efforts to improve equity of access, outcomes and experience for patients.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors as sanguine epitherapeutics against the deadliest lung cancer

The back-breaking resistance mechanisms generated by lung cancer cells against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), KRAS and Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) directed therapies strongly prioritizes the requirement of novel therapies which are perfectly tolerated, potentially cytotoxic and can reinstate the drug-sensitivity in lung cancer cells. Enzymatic proteins modifying the post-translational modifications of nucleosome-integrated histone substrates are appearing as current targets for defeating various malignancies. Histone deacetylases (HDACs) are hyperexpressed in diverse lung cancer types. Blocking the active pocket of these acetylation erasers through HDAC inhibitors (HDACi) has come out as an optimistic therapeutic recourse for annihilating lung cancer. This article in the beginning gives an overview about lung cancer statistics and predominant lung cancer types. Succeeding this, compendium about conventional therapies and their serious drawbacks has been provided. Then, connection of uncommon expression of classical HDACs in lung cancer onset and expansion has been detailed. Moreover, keeping the main theme in view this article deeply discusses HDACi in the context of aggressive lung cancer as single agents and spotlights various molecular targets suppressed or induced by these inhibitors for engendering cytotoxic effect. Most particularly, the raised pharmacological effects achieved on using these inhibitors in concerted form with other therapeutic molecules and the cancer-linked pathways altered by this procedure are described. The positive direction towards further heightening of efficacy and the pressing requirement of exhaustive clinical assessment has been proposed as a new focus point.

Overall survival of individuals with metastatic cancer in Sweden: a nationwide study

Aims

Consistent improvements for overall survival (OS) have been reported for individuals with metastatic cancer. Swedish population-based registers allow national coverage and long follow-up time. The aim of this study was to estimate and explore long-term OS of individuals diagnosed with metastatic cancer using Swedish nationwide health registers.

Methods

Individuals with metastatic breast (MBC), non-small cell lung (MNSCLC), ovary (MOC) or colorectal cancer (MCRC) or metastatic malignant melanoma (MMM) were identified in the Swedish national cancer register and national patient registers. Survival was estimated and stratified by available variables. Potential cure fractions were estimated using mixture cure models.

Results

In total, approximately 69,000 individuals were identified. The most common cancers were MCRC (36.2%) and MNSCLC (29.5%). Men were more frequently diagnosed with MNSCLC, MCRC, and MMM compared to women. Except for MOC, about 50% of individuals were 70 years or older at diagnosis. Throughout the study period survival differed across cancers. The longest median OS was observed for individuals with MOC and MBC. At 10 years of follow-up, the survival curves flatten at a survival rate of approximately 10% for all cancers except MNSCLC. The youngest age groups had the longest median OS. Increased survival was also observed for individuals diagnosed in 2015 and 2018 compared to individuals diagnosed during earlier years. The estimated cure fractions were 4% for MBC, 1.5% for MNSCLC, 6.8% for MCRC, 8.6% for MOC and MMM.

Conclusions

Long-term survival has been assessed across all indications except for NSCLC.. The findings may be relevant for healthcare planning to meet the needs of future patients and potential long-term survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14255-w.

Sex differences in the characteristics and survival of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: A retrospective analytical study based on real-world clinical data of the Korean population

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the differences in characteristics, clinical stages, treatment modalities, and survival outcomes in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on sex differences using Korean nationwide registry data.

Methods

We analyzed the data of 8650 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2014 and 2017, obtained from the Korean Association for Lung Cancer Registry (KALC‐R). The Cox proportional hazard model was used to define the differences in survival based on sex. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for differences between men and women.

Results

Of a total of 10 943 patients, 8650 (79.1%) were diagnosed with NSCLC, of whom 68.7% were men and 31.3% were women. For NSCLC, the median age was higher (69.0 vs. 67.0, p < 0.001) and the proportion of ever‐smokers (84.5% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.001) was higher in men. Adenocarcinoma (55.5% vs. 90.4%, p < 0.001) and stage I NSCLC (26.3% vs. 41.3%, p < 0.001) were more common in women. Survival was significantly lower in men with NSCLC (hazard ratio [HR] 1.493 [95% confidence interval, CI 1.238–1.800], p < 0.001) even after adjusting for meaningful clinical variables, and in the matched cohort (HR 1.339 [1.075–1.667], p = 0.009). Similarly, survival was significantly lower in men with stage IV adenocarcinoma after adjusting for other clinical variables (HR 1.493 [1.238–1.800], p < 0.001) and in the matched cohort (HR 1.339 [1.075–1.667]; p = 0.009).

Conclusions

Male patients with NSCLC had poorer prognosis, not only after variable adjustments for prognostic factors, but also in the matched cohort.

The evolving landscape of sex-based differences in lung cancer: a distinct disease in women

In stark contrast to a few decades ago when lung cancer was predominantly a disease of men who smoke, incidence rates of lung cancer in women are now comparable to or higher than those in men and are rising alarmingly in many parts of the world. Women face a unique set of risk factors for lung cancer compared to men. These include exogenous exposures including radon, prior radiation, and fumes from indoor cooking materials such as coal, in addition to endogenous exposures such as oestrogen and distinct genetic polymorphisms. Current screening guidelines only address tobacco use and likely underrepresent lung cancer risk in women. Women were also not well represented in some of the landmark prospective studies that led to the development of current screening guidelines. Women diagnosed with lung cancer have a clear mortality benefit compared to men even when other clinical and demographic characteristics are accounted for. However, there may be sex-based differences in outcomes and side effects of systemic therapy, particularly with chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Ongoing research is needed to better investigate these differences to address the rapidly changing demographics of lung cancer worldwide.

Social Disparities in Lung Cancer

Social disparities in lung cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survival have been studied using national databases, statewide registries, and institution-level data. Some disparities emerge consistently, such as lower adherence to treatment guidelines and worse survival by race and socioeconomic status, whereas other disparities are less well studied. A critical appraisal of current data is essential to increasing equity in lung cancer care.

Addressing Gender Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility: USPSTF versus PLCOm2012 Criteria

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in the United States. Prospective randomized lung screening trials suggest a greater lung cancer mortality benefit from screening women compared to men.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) lung screening guidelines that are based solely on age and smoking history contribute to gender disparities in eligibility, and if so, does the use of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model that is based on 11 predictors of lung cancer reduce gender disparities?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis of 883 lung cancer cases in the Chicago Race Eligibility for Screening Cohort (CREST) determined the sensitivity of USPSTF versus PLCOm2012 eligibility criteria, stratified by gender. For comparisons to the USPSTF 2013and the recently published USPSTF 2021(released March 9^th, 2021) eligibility criteria, the PLCOm2012 model was used with risk thresholds of ≥1.7%/6y and >1.0%/6y, respectively.

RESULTS

The sensitivities for screening by the USPSTF 2013were 46.7% for women and 64.6% for men (p=0.003) and by the USPSTF 2021were 56.8% and 71.8%, respectively (p=0.02). In contrast, the PLCOm2012 ≥1.7%/6y sensitivities were 64.6% and 70.4%, respectively, and the PLCOm2012 ≥1.0%/6y sensitivities were 77.4% and 82.4%, respectively. The PLCOm2012 differences in sensitivity using ≥1.7%/6y and ≥1.0%/6y thresholds between women and men were nonsignificant (both p=0.07). Compared to men, women were more likely to be ineligible by the USPSTF 2021criteria because their smoking exposures were <20 pack-years (22.8% vs 14.8%, OR_{Women vs Men} 1.70, 95% CI 1.19-2.44; p=0.002) and 27% of these ineligible women were eligible by the PLCOm2012 >1.0%/6y criteria.

INTERPRETATION

Although the USPSTF 2021eligibility criteria are more sensitive than the USPSTF 2013guidelines, there remains gender disparities in eligibility. Adding the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model to the USPSTF guidelines would improve sensitivity and attenuate gender disparities.