The associations of food environment with gastrointestinal cancer outcomes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Social conditions and dietary behaviors have been implicated in the rising burden of gastrointestinal cancers (GIC). The "food environment" reflects influences on a community level relative to food availability, nutritional assistance, and social determinants of health. Using the US Department of Agriculture-Food Environment Atlas (FEA), we sought to characterize the association of food environment on GIC presenting stage and long-term survival. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with GIC between 2013 and 2017 were identified using the SEER database. FEA-scores were based on 282 county-level food security variables, store-restaurant availability, SNAP/WIC enrollment, pricing/taxes, and producer vicinity adjusted-for factors of socioeconomic status, race-ethnicity, transportation access, and comorbidities. Relative FEA rankings across US counties were averaged into a composite score and assigned to patients by county-of-residence. The association of FEA, cancer stage, and survival were analyzed using multiple logistic regression and cox-proportional hazard models relative to White/non-White race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 287,148 patients, the most common GIC-sites were colon (n = 97,942, 34%), pancreas (n = 49,785, 17.3%), liver (n = 31,098, 11.0%) and esophagus (n = 16,271, 5.7%). A worse food environment was independently associated with increased odds of late-stage diagnosis (esophageal odds ratio [OR]: 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.05; hepatic OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.03-1.08; pancreatic OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.06) among all patients; in contrast, food environment was associated with colorectal cancer stage among non-White patients only (OR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.03-1.06). Worse food environment was associated with worse 3-year survival (colon OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04; hepatic OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.08-1.17; gastric OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13). Similar associations were noted relative to overall survival among the entire cohort (biliary tract hazard ratio [HR]: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05; esophageal HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04; hepatic HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.06-1.09; pancreatic HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.05; rectum HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04; gastric HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.03-1.07), as well as among non-White patients (biliary HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07; colon HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.05; esophageal HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.08; hepatic HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.06-1.10) (all p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Food environment was independently associated with late-stage tumor presentation and worse 3-year and overall survival among GIC patients. Interventions to address inequities across communities relative to food environments are needed to alleviate disparities in cancer care.

Current and future role of double-lung transplantation for bilateral lung cancer.

Technological advances have progressively enhanced the survival rate of lung transplant recipients and expanded its indications for various diseases, including the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, according to the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, lung cancer constituted a mere 0.1% of the indications for lung transplantation over the past two decades. This statistic has remained stagnant, and numerous lung cancer patients continue to be excluded from lung transplantation candidacy. Contrary to the general exclusion of lung cancer patients from transplantation, the post-transplant survival rate for these patients is not inferior to that of patients with non-cancerous diseases. Furthermore, lung transplantation may offer curative treatment for patients with bilateral lung cancer whose respiratory insufficiency has advanced independently of cancer progression. This review aims to elucidate and examine the role of double lung transplantation (DLT) in bilateral lung cancer. We summarize the established indications for lung transplantation, appropriate histologic or molecular subtypes of lung cancer for transplantation, technical advances to minimize recurrence, post-DLT survival outcomes for lung cancer patients, and related translational research. We suggest that although DLT for bilateral lung cancer presents challenges, it may be considered a potential treatment option in select circumstances.