How does weight gain since the age of 18 years affect breast cancer risk in later life? A meta-analysis.

Early life factors are important risk factors for breast cancer. The association between weight gain after age 18 and breast cancer risk is inconsistent across previous epidemiologic studies. To evaluate this association, we conducted a meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines and the established inclusion criteria. We performed a comprehensive literature search using Medline (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant studies published before June 3, 2022. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles for final inclusion. Seventeen out of 4,725 unique studies met the selection criteria. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and all were of moderate to high quality with NOS scores ranging from 5 to 8. We included 17 studies (11 case-control, 6 cohort) in final analysis. In case-control studies, weight gain after age 18 was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.07-1.48), when comparing the highest versus the lowest categories of weight gain. Menopausal status was a source of heterogeneity, with weight gain after age 18 associated with an increased risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women (OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.40-1.68), but not in premenopausal women (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.92-1.12). Additionally, a 5 kg increase in weight was positively associated with postmenopausal breast cancer risk (OR = 1.12; 95%CI = 1.05-1.21) in case-control studies. Findings from cohort studies were identical, with a positive association between weight gain after age 18 and breast cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (relative risk [RR] = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.09-1.36), but not in premenopausal women (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.92-1.22). Weight gain after age 18 is a risk factor for postmenopausal breast cancer, highlighting the importance of weight control from early adulthood to reduce the incidence of postmenopausal breast cancer.

Short-course radiation with consolidation chemotherapy does not increase operative morbidity compared to long-course chemoradiation: A retrospective study of the US rectal cancer consortium.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant short-course radiation and consolidation chemotherapy (SC TNT) remains less widely used for rectal cancer in the United States than long-course chemoradiation (LCRT). SC TNT may improve compliance and downstaging; however, a longer radiation-to-surgery interval may worsen pelvic fibrosis and morbidity with total mesorectal excision (TME). A single, US-center retrospective analysis has shown comparable risk of morbidity after neoadjuvant short-course radiation with consolidation chemotherapy (SC TNT) and long-course chemoradiation (LCRT). Validation by a multi-institutional study is needed. METHODS: The US Rectal Cancer Consortium database (2010-2018) was retrospectively reviewed for patients with nonmetastatic, rectal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant LCRT or SC TNT before TME. The primary endpoint was severe postoperative morbidity. Cohorts were compared by univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeled the odds of severe complication. RESULTS: Of 788 included patients, 151 (19%) received SC TNT and 637 (81%) LCRT. The SC TNT group had fewer distal tumors (33.8% vs. 50.2%, p < 0.0001) and more clinical node-positive disease (74.2% vs. 47.6%, p < 0.0001). The intraoperative complication rate was similar (SC TNT 5.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.65). There was no difference in overall postoperative morbidity (38.4% vs. 46.3%, p = 0.08). Severe morbidity was similar with low anterior resection (9.1% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.10) and abdominoperineal resection (24.4% vs. 29.7%, p = 0.49). SC TNT did not increase the odds of severe morbidity relative to LCRT on multivariable analysis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37-1.10). CONCLUSIONS: SC TNT does not increase morbidity after TME for rectal cancer relative to LCRT. Concern for surgical complications should not discourage the use of SC TNT when aiming to increase the likelihood of complete clinical response.

Red-flag signs and symptoms for earlier diagnosis of early-onset colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prompt detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals younger than age 50 years (early-onset CRC) is a clinical priority because of its alarming rise. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study of 5075 incident early-onset CRC among US commercial insurance beneficiaries (113 million adults aged 18-64 years) with 2 or more years of continuous enrollment (2006-2015) to identify red-flag signs and symptoms between 3 months to 2 years before the index date among 17 prespecified signs and symptoms. We assessed diagnostic intervals according to the presence of these signs and symptoms before and within 3 months of diagnosis. RESULTS: Between 3 months and 2 years before the index date, 4 red-flag signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron deficiency anemia) were associated with an increased risk of early-onset CRC, with odds ratios (ORs) ranging from 1.34 to 5.13. Having 1, 2, or at least 3 of these signs and symptoms were associated with a 1.94-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.76 to 2.14), 3.59-fold (95% CI = 2.89 to 4.44), and 6.52-fold (95% CI = 3.78 to 11.23) risk (Ptrend < .001), respectively, with stronger associations for younger ages (Pinteraction < .001) and rectal cancer (Pheterogenity = .012). The number of different signs and symptoms was predictive of early-onset CRC beginning 18 months before diagnosis. Approximately 19.3% of patients had their first sign or symptom occur between 3 months and 2 years before diagnosis (median diagnostic interval = 8.7 months), and approximately 49.3% had the first sign or symptom within 3 months of diagnosis (median diagnostic interval = 0.53 month). CONCLUSIONS: Early recognition of red-flag signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and iron-deficiency anemia) may improve early detection and timely diagnosis of early-onset CRC.

Cost-effectiveness of Total Neoadjuvant Therapy With Short-Course Radiotherapy for Resectable Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Importance: Short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) has emerged as a new treatment paradigm for patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. However, the economic implication of this treatment strategy has not been compared with that of conventional long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) followed by TME with adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT in conjunction with TME for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical model with a 5-year time horizon was constructed for patients with biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma treated with SCRT-TNT or LCCRT. Markov modeling was used to model disease progression and patient survival after treatment in 3-month cycles. Data on probabilities and utilities were extracted from the literature. Costs were evaluated from the Medicare payer's perspective in 2020 US dollars. Sensitivity analyses were performed for key variables. Data were collected from October 3, 2020, to January 20, 2021, and analyzed from November 15, 2020, to April 25, 2021. Exposures: Two treatment strategies, SCRT-TNT vs LCCRT with adjuvant chemotherapy, were compared. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and net monetary benefits. Effectiveness was defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $50 000/QALY. Results: During the 5-year horizon, the total cost was $41 355 and QALYs were 2.21 for SCRT-TNT; for LCCRT, the total cost was $54 827 and QALYs were 2.12, resulting in a negative incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (-$141 256.77). The net monetary benefit was $69 300 for SCRT-TNT and $51 060 for LCCRT. Sensitivity analyses using willingness to pay at $100 000/QALY and $150 000/QALY demonstrated the same conclusion. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that SCRT-TNT followed by TME incurs lower cost and improved QALYs compared with conventional LCCRT followed by TME and adjuvant chemotherapy. These data offer further rationale to support SCRT-TNT as a novel cost-saving treatment paradigm in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer.

Immunity, immunotherapy, and rectal cancer: A clinical and translational science review.

Rectal cancer remains a challenging disease to treat. Therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), the most frequent presentation, has evolved to include a multimodal approach of radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery. While this approach improves local disease control, the distant recurrence rate is nearly 30% and treatment-related morbidity is substantial, thus underscoring the need for new therapeutic approaches with better efficacy and lower side effects. Immunotherapy could potentially fill this need, but its promise is not yet realized in rectal cancer. In this translational science review, we address what is known about how cytotoxic therapies shape rectal cancer immunity and potentially prime the tumor microenvironment for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies. We also address the role of current immunotherapies in colorectal cancer and highlight where novel immunotherapy approaches are currently being evaluated in LARC. Finally, we address important future directions in LARC immunotherapy including the need to define optimal therapeutic sequencing, predictive biomarkers, strategies to limit treatment-related side effects and the potential of gut microbiome manipulation to improve outcomes. In summary, this review provides a framework to guide future research and inform immunotherapy trial design so as to advance rectal cancer care.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Physical Function and Perioperative Complication in Major Abdominal Colorectal Operations.

BACKGROUND: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) is a validated tool for capturing a patient's perception of their physical capacity. The goal of this study was to determine whether preoperative PF correlates with a risk of postoperative complications. STUDY DESIGN: Patients from a single-institution American College of Surgeons NSQIP database undergoing elective colorectal abdominal operations from January 2018 to June 2019 with a preoperative PROMIS-PF T-score were eligible for this retrospective study. Patients were divided into moderate to severe (score <40) and minimal to mild (score ≥40) physical disability cohorts. Primary outcomes were any complication and any Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complication. Multivariate logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: In total, 249 patients were included: 78 (31%) with self-scored moderate to severe disability and 171 (69%) with minimal to mild disability. Patients who scored as moderate to severe disability had a higher frequency of comorbidities and an open operative approach compared with patients with minimal to mild disability. These patients then had higher rates of any complication (37.2% vs 19.9%; p = 0.0036) and Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complications (14.1% vs 7.6%; p = 0.017). After adjusting for patient factors, surgical procedure, and approach, patients scoring as moderate to severe disability were 2.00 times more likely (95% CI, 1.05 to 3.84; p = 0.036) to have any complication and 2.76 times more likely (95% CI, 1.07 to 7.14; p = 0.036) to have a Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher complication. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to severe PF disability score is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications among patients undergoing colorectal operations. PROMIS-PF T-score can be a useful tool to identify patients who would benefit from targeted preoperative interventions, such as patient education, nutritional optimization, and prehabilitation.