Screening Implications for Distribution of Colorectal Cancer Subsite by Age and Role of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy.

Objectives: The effectiveness of colonoscopy to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality is extrapolated from cohort studies in the absence of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, whereas flexible sigmoidoscopy is supported by RCT data and may be easier to implement in practice. We characterized the anatomic distribution of CRC to determine the proportion that is visible with sigmoidoscopy. Methods: Patients with a primary diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (2000-2020). Tumors from the rectum to the descending colon were categorized as visible by sigmoidoscopy, whereas more proximal tumors required colonoscopy. Differential prognosis between tumor locations, stratified by age groups and stage, was assessed using the overall restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 2, 5, and 10 years. Results: Among 309,466 patients, 58% had tumors visible by sigmoidoscopy, including 73% of those under age 50 (OR 2.10, 95% CI 2.03-2.16 age < 45, OR 2.20, 95% CI 2.13-2.27 age 45-49 versus age ≥ 50). Male sex (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.51-1.56) and Asian or Pacific Islander race (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.56-1.64) were also positively associated with tumors visualizable by sigmoidoscopy. Across age groups, for local disease, RMST was comparable for tumors visible versus not visible on sigmoidoscopy. For regional and metastatic cancer, patients with tumors visible by sigmoidoscopy had improved RMST versus those with more proximal tumors. Conclusions: 58% of CRC arises in locations visible by flexible sigmoidoscopy. Flexible sigmoidoscopy should be considered as a viable option for CRC screening, particularly in younger patients unwilling or unable to undergo colonoscopy.

Screening Implications for Distribution of Colorectal Cancer Subsite by Age.

Objectives: The effectiveness of colonoscopy to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality is extrapolated from cohort studies in the absence of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data, whereas flexible sigmoidoscopy is supported by RCT data and may be easier to implement in practice. We characterized the anatomic distribution of CRC to determine the proportion that is visible with sigmoidoscopy. Methods: Patients with a primary diagnosis of colorectal adenocarcinoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (2000-2020). Tumors from the rectum to descending colon were categorized as visible by sigmoidoscopy, whereas more proximal tumors as requiring colonoscopy. Differential prognosis between tumor locations, stratified by age groups and stage, were assessed using overall restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 2, 5, and 10 years. Results: Among 309,466 patients, 58% had tumors visible by sigmoidoscopy, including 73% of those under age 50 (OR 2.10, 95%CI 2.03-2.16 age <45, OR 2.20, 95%CI 2.13-2.27 age 45-49 versus age > 50). Male sex (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.51-1.56) and Asian or Pacific Islander race (OR 1.60, 95%CI 1.56-1.64) were also positively associated with tumors visualizable by sigmoidoscopy. Across age groups, for local disease, RMST was comparable for tumors visible versus not visible on sigmoidoscopy. For regional and metastatic cancer, patients with tumors visible by sigmoidoscopy had improved RMST versus those with more proximal tumors. Conclusions: Most CRC arise in locations visible by flexible sigmoidoscopy. Flexible sigmoidoscopy should be considered as a viable option for CRC screening, particularly in younger patients unwilling or unable to undergo colonoscopy.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Genomic Profiling of Early Onset Colorectal Cancer.

The incidence and mortality of early onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) is rising; outcomes appear to differ by race and ethnicity. We aimed to assess differences in mutational landscape and gene expression of EOCRC by racial and ethnic groups (non-Hispanic Asian, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, White Hispanic) using data from the American Association for Cancer Research Project GENIE (10.2) and University of Texas Southwestern, the latter enriched in Hispanic patients. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Of 1752 EOCRC patients, non-Hispanic Black patients had higher rates of KRAS mutations (60.9%; P = .001, q = 0.015), and non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients had higher rates of APC mutations (77.1% and 76.6% among non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black patients, respectively; P = .001, q = 0.015) via the Fisher exact test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Using R packages DESeq2 and clusterProfiler, we found that White Hispanic patients had increased expression of genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation (P < .001, q = 0.025). Genomic profiling has the potential to identify novel diagnostics and influence individualized treatment options to address the currently limited prognosis of EOCRC.

Racial Disparities in E-Cigarette Use among Conventionally Smoking Cancer Survivors in the United States, 2014-2018.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become increasingly popular in the United States, including among cancer survivors, and the majority of users also endorse conventional cigarette usage. There has been little research on racial disparities of e-cigarette usage among this population. METHODS: Using data from the National Health Interview Survey (2014-2018), trends in e-cigarette usage by smoking status was estimated among cancer survivors reporting a history of conventional cigarette use. Multivariable logistic regression analyses defined adjusted odds of e-cigarette usage including an interaction term between race*smoking status to assess whether the association between race and e-cigarette usage depended on smoking status. RESULTS: Among 8,199 cancer survivors with history of conventional e-cigarette usage, 1,422 (17.3%) also reported using of e-cigarettes. The majority (71.3%) of e-cigarette users were current (versus former) conventional cigarette smoking individuals. White race was associated with higher odds of e-cigarette usage (AOR 2.17, 95% CI 2.00-2.33, p < 0.001), however there was a statistically significant race*smoking status interaction term (p < 0.001) such that this association was only seen among current conventional smoking patients (AOR 1.96, 95% 1.67-2.70, p < 0.001; 50.6% vs. 33.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Among the oncology population, the majority of e-cigarette users also endorsed active conventional cigarette smoking. In particular, dual usage was highest among White cancer survivors suggesting that e-cigarettes may not be an efficacious tool for smoking cessation among this population. Our findings can can help inform targeted screening and counseling efforts among cancer survivors.

Trends and Factors Associated With Receipt of Upfront Surgery for Stage II to III Rectal Adenocarcinoma in the United States, 2006 to 2016.

INTRODUCTION: The German rectal study published in 2004 established neoadjuvant chemoradiation as a standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer and current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines endorse several preoperative regimens. Upfront surgery, however, is considered substandard care. In the era of evolving treatment paradigms for locally advanced rectal cancer, we sought to assess trends and predictors of receipt of upfront surgery for stage II to III rectal cancer. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with clinical stage II to III rectal adenocarcinoma between 2006 and 2016. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals of receipt of upfront definitive surgery. The timing of upfront surgery relative to day of diagnosis and rate of receipt of adjuvant therapy were also estimated. RESULTS: Among 51,562 patients, 6411 (12.4%) were treated with upfront surgery, which decreased from 16.7% in 2006 to 7.1% in 2016 (P<0.001). The majority of patients (5737 [89.5%]) had definitive surgery after initial diagnostic biopsy. Variables associated with receipt of upfront surgery included female sex, older age, higher comorbidity score, and treatment at a community cancer center (P<0.001). Among those receiving upfront surgery, 2904 (45.3%) received adjuvant radiation therapy, 3218 (50.2%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, and 2559 (39.9%) received no further treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with clinical stage II to III rectal cancer treated with upfront surgery has steadily declined since 2006, however, certain subgroups appear to remain at greater risk. Further research is needed to better elucidate patient and systems-level factors contributing to these disparities in care.

Patterns of Dose Escalation Among Patients With Esophageal Cancer Undergoing Definitive Radiation Therapy: 2006-2016.

PURPOSE: Although single-institution series suggest potential benefit to dose escalation in definitive radiation therapy for esophageal cancer, randomized trials including intergroup-0123 and the recently presented A Randomized Trial of Dose Escalation in definitive Chemoradiotherapy for patients with Oesophageal cancer (ARTDECO) trial showed no improvement in outcomes with higher radiation therapy dose. As such, there may be significant variation in radiation dose for definitive treatment of esophageal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients who received a diagnosis of nonmetastatic T2+ esophageal cancer between 2006 and 2016 who did not receive definitive surgery and were treated with chemotherapy and radiation therapy doses between 41.4 and 74 Gy. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of receipt of >50.4 Gy, including year of diagnosis (2006-2013 vs 2014-2016) ∗ histology (squamous cell carcinoma [SCC] vs adenocarcinoma) and year of diagnosis (2006-2013 vs 2014-2016) ∗ disease site (cervical esophagus vs noncervical esophagus) interaction terms, to assess whether the effect of diagnosis year on dose varied by histology and disease site, respectively. RESULTS: Among 14,517 patients, the most common dose was 50.4 Gy, used for 6955 (47.9%) patients. Dose escalation above 50.4 Gy was observed in 4440 (30.6%) patients and declined by year, from 42.2% in 2006 to 23.5% in 2016. Patients with SCC versus adenocarcinoma had higher odds of dose escalation (39.3% vs 23.8%; AOR 1.46; P < .001), as did those with cervical esophageal primaries versus other primary sites (54.9% vs 27.4%; AOR 2.51; P < .001). The effect of later diagnosis year was greater for adenocarcinoma than for SCC (pint = 0.001, AOR 0.54, P < .001 vs AOR 0.71, P < .001) and significant for noncervical esophagus but not cervical esophagus (pint <0.001, AOR 0.56, P < .001 vs AOR 0.95, P = .616). CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation in definitive chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer declined over time, particularly for adenocarcinoma histology and noncervical primary site. Given the recent results of ARTDECO, our findings can serve as a benchmark from which to measure future shifts in practice patterns.