ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evidence about late effects in adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors is scarce. This study assessed the risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) to identify the most common SMNs to be considered in follow-up care. METHODS: Population-based cancer registries retrospectively identified first primary tumors (between 1976 and 2013) and SMNs in AYAs (15-39 years old at their cancer diagnosis). AYA cancer survivors were those alive at least 5 years after their first cancer diagnosis. The excess risk of SMNs was measured as standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and absolute excess risk together with the cumulative incidence of SMNs. RESULTS: The cohort included 67,692 AYA cancer survivors. The excess risk of developing any SMN (SIR, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-1.7) was 60%. The excess risk of SMNs was significantly high for survivors of lymphomas; cancers of the breast, thyroid, female genital tract, digestive organs, gonads, and urinary tract; and melanomas. The cumulative incidence of all SMNs in AYA cancer survivors within 25 years of their first cancer diagnosis was approximately 10%. Subsequent tumors contributing to approximately 60% of all SMNs were breast cancer, colorectal cancer, corpus uteri cancer, and ovarian cancer in females and colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, and lymphomas in males. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the need to personalize follow-up strategies for AYA cancer survivors.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Cancer Survivors , Neoplasms, Second Primary , Neoplasms , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms, Second Primary/diagnosis , Neoplasms, Second Primary/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare cancer with a poor prognosis. Centralization of rare cancer in dedicated centers is recommended to ensure expertise, multidisciplinarity and access to innovation. In Italy, expert centers for MPM have not been identified in all regions. We aimed to describe the treatment patterns among MPM patients across different Italian regions and to identify factors associated with the treatment patterns across the regions. METHODS: We performed an observational study on a random sample of 2026 MPM patients diagnosed in 2003-2008. We included 26 population-based registries covering 70% of the Italian population. To identify factors associated with treatment patterns, across the different regions, we fitted a multinomial logistic regression model adjusted by age, sex, stage, histology and hospital with thoracic surgical department. RESULTS: MPM patients mostly received chemotherapy alone (41%) or no cancer-directed therapy (36%) especially the older patients. The first course of treatment for MPM patients differed across regions. Patients from Piedmont, Liguria and Campania were more likely to receive no cancer-directed therapy; those living in Tuscany and Sicily were more likely to get surgery; patients from Marche and Lazio were more likely to receive chemotherapy. These differences were not explained by age, sex, stage, histology and availability of a thoracic surgery department. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited expertise available and lack of a network able to maximize the expertise available may contribute to explaining the results of our study. Our findings support the need to ensure the appropriate care of all MPM patients in reorganizing the health care services. KEY POINTS: Significant findings of the study: MPM patients mostly received chemotherapy alone or no cancer-directed therapy especially the older patients. The first course of treatment for MPM patients differed across Italian regions. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Differences in MPM clinical management are not explained by the age, stage, histology nor by the availability of a thoracic surgery department. Limited expertise for MPM contribute to explaining the unequal access to appropriate care for MPM patients in Italy.
