A randomized trial of immediate versus delayed survivorship care plan receipt on patient satisfaction and knowledge of diagnosis and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) and care-planning sessions have been recommended for over a decade, yet evidence for their benefit remains mixed. In a randomized trial, changes in survivor knowledge and satisfaction before and after the receipt of an SCP were assessed. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer who had completed curative-intent treatment were randomized to immediate versus delayed receipt of an individualized SCP. All participants completed the modified Wisconsin Survey of Cancer Diagnosis and Management in Breast Cancer and the Preparing for Life As a New Survivor survey to assess individual knowledge about cancer diagnosis, treatment, side effects, and follow-up as well as satisfaction with communication and care coordination. Surveys were completed at baseline, at 4 weeks (before delayed receipt), and again at 12 weeks (after all participants had received SCPs); the primary outcome was change in knowledge at 4 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 127 eligible women were randomized. An improvement in individual knowledge was observed between baseline and week 12 for both arms combined (+1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.3; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in knowledge from baseline through week 4 between the arms. No significant change occurred for satisfaction scores over time. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial of immediate versus delayed SCP receipt demonstrated a small improvement (4%) in survivor knowledge. However, this improvement did not appear to be related to SCP provision. The authors hypothesized that the improvement was because of repeated administration of the knowledge survey. If improved survivor knowledge is a goal, then strategies beyond the 1-time provision and review of an SCP should be explored.

Factors Associated With Small Aggressive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancers in the National Lung Screening Trial: A Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) have been observed to spread to distant lymph nodes (N3) or metastasize (M1) or both, while the primary tumor is small (≤3 cm, T1). These small aggressive NSCLCs (SA-NSLSC) are important as they are clinically significant, may identify unique biologic pathways, and warrant aggressive follow-up and treatment. This study identifies factors associated with SA-NSCLC and attempts to validate a previous finding that women with a family history of lung cancer are at particularly elevated risk of SA-NSCLC. METHODS: This study used a case-case design within the National Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) cohort. Case patients and "control" patients were selected based on TNM staging parameters. Case patients (n = 64) had T1 NSCLCs that were N3 or M1 or both, while "control" patients (n = 206) had T2 or T3, N0 to N2, and M0 NSCLCs. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify factors associated with SA-NSCLC. RESULTS: In bootstrap bias-corrected multivariable logistic regression models, small aggressive adenocarcinomas were associated with a positive history of emphysema (odds ratio [OR] = 5.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.63 to 23.00) and the interaction of female sex and a positive family history of lung cancer (OR = 6.55, 95% CI = 1.06 to 50.80). CONCLUSIONS: Emphysema may play a role in early lung cancer progression. Females with a family history of lung cancer are at increased risk of having small aggressive lung adenocarcinomas. These results validate previous findings and encourage research on the role of female hormones interacting with family history and genetic factors in lung carcinogenesis and progression.

Accuracy and Thoroughness of Treatment Summaries Provided as Part of Survivorship Care Plans Prepared by Two Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Treatment summaries prepared as part of survivorship care planning should correctly and thoroughly report diagnosis and treatment information. METHODS: As part of a clinical trial, summaries were prepared for patients with stage 0 to III breast cancer at two cancer centers. Summaries were prepared per the standard of care at each center via two methods: using the electronic health record (EHR) to create and facilitate autopopulation of content or using manual data entry into an external software program to create the summary. Each participant's clinical data were abstracted and cross-checked against each summary. Errors were defined as inaccurate information, and omissions were defined as missing information on the basis of the Institute of Medicine recommended elements. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one summaries were reviewed: 80 EHR based versus 41 software based. Twenty-four EHR-based summaries (30%) versus six software-based summaries (15%) contained one or more omissions. Omissions included failure to provide dates and specify all axillary surgeries for EHR-based summaries and failure to specify receptors for software-based summaries. Eight EHR-based summaries (10%) versus 19 software-based summaries (46%) contained one or more errors. Errors in EHR-based summaries were mostly discrepancies in dates, and errors in software-based summaries included incorrect stage, surgeries, chemotherapy, and receptors. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of summaries contained at least one error or omission; some were potentially clinically significant. Mismatches between the clinical scenario and templates contributed to many of the errors and omissions. In an era of required care plan provision, quality measures should be considered and tracked to reduce rates, decrease inadvertent contributions from templates, and support audited data use.

Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer risks at which individuals should be screened with computed tomography (CT) for lung cancer are undecided. This study's objectives are to identify a risk threshold for selecting individuals for screening, to compare its efficiency with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for identifying screenees, and to determine whether never-smokers should be screened. Lung cancer risks are compared between smokers aged 55-64 and ≥ 65-80 y. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Applying the PLCO(m2012) model, a model based on 6-y lung cancer incidence, we identified the risk threshold above which National Lung Screening Trial (NLST, n = 53,452) CT arm lung cancer mortality rates were consistently lower than rates in the chest X-ray (CXR) arm. We evaluated the USPSTF and PLCO(m2012) risk criteria in intervention arm (CXR) smokers (n = 37,327) of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO). The numbers of smokers selected for screening, and the sensitivities, specificities, and positive predictive values (PPVs) for identifying lung cancers were assessed. A modified model (PLCOall2014) evaluated risks in never-smokers. At PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151, the 65th percentile of risk, the NLST CT arm mortality rates are consistently below the CXR arm's rates. The number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death in the 65th to 100th percentile risk group is 255 (95% CI 143 to 1,184), and in the 30th to <65th percentile risk group is 963 (95% CI 291 to -754); the number needed to screen could not be estimated in the <30th percentile risk group because of absence of lung cancer deaths. When applied to PLCO intervention arm smokers, compared to the USPSTF criteria, the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 threshold selected 8.8% fewer individuals for screening (p<0.001) but identified 12.4% more lung cancers (sensitivity 80.1% [95% CI 76.8%-83.0%] versus 71.2% [95% CI 67.6%-74.6%], p<0.001), had fewer false-positives (specificity 66.2% [95% CI 65.7%-66.7%] versus 62.7% [95% CI 62.2%-63.1%], p<0.001), and had higher PPV (4.2% [95% CI 3.9%-4.6%] versus 3.4% [95% CI 3.1%-3.7%], p<0.001). In total, 26% of individuals selected for screening based on USPSTF criteria had risks below the threshold PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Of PLCO former smokers with quit time >15 y, 8.5% had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. None of 65,711 PLCO never-smokers had PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151. Risks and lung cancers were significantly greater in PLCO smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y than in those aged 55-64 y. This study omitted cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The USPSTF criteria for CT screening include some low-risk individuals and exclude some high-risk individuals. Use of the PLCO(m2012) risk ≥ 0.0151 criterion can improve screening efficiency. Currently, never-smokers should not be screened. Smokers aged ≥ 65-80 y are a high-risk group who may benefit from screening. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Diagnostic evaluation following a positive lung screening chest radiograph in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

Lung cancer is the major cause of cancer mortality. One of the aims of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) was to determine if annual screening chest radiographs reduce lung cancer mortality. We enrolled 154,900 individuals, aged 55-74 years; 77,445 were randomized to the intervention arm and received an annual chest radiograph for 3 or 4 years. Participants with a positive screen underwent diagnostic evaluation under guidance of their primary physician. Methods of diagnosis or exclusion of cancer, interval from screen to diagnosis, and factors predicting diagnostic testing were evaluated. One or more positive screens occurred in 17% of participants. Positive screens resulted in biopsy in 3%, with 54% positive for cancer. Biopsy likelihood was associated with a mass, smoking, age, and family history of lung cancer. Diagnostic testing stopped after a chest radiograph or computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging in over half. After a second or subsequent positive screen, evaluation stopped after comparison to prior radiographs in over half. Of 308 screen-detected cancers, the diagnosis was established by thoracotomy/thoracoscopy in 47.7%, needle biopsy in 27.6%, bronchoscopy in 20.1% and mediastinoscopy in 2.9%. Eighty-four percent of screen-detected lung cancers were diagnosed within 6 months. Diagnostic evaluations following a positive screen were conducted in a timely fashion. Lung cancer was diagnosed by tissue biopsy or cytology in all cases. Lung cancer was excluded during evaluation of positive screening examinations by clinical or radiographic evaluation in all but 1.4% who required a tissue biopsy.

Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) used risk factors for lung cancer (e.g., ≥30 pack-years of smoking and <15 years since quitting) as selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. Use of an accurate model that incorporates additional risk factors to select persons for screening may identify more persons who have lung cancer or in whom lung cancer will develop. METHODS: We modified the 2011 lung-cancer risk-prediction model from our Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial to ensure applicability to NLST data; risk was the probability of a diagnosis of lung cancer during the 6-year study period. We developed and validated the model (PLCO(M2012)) with data from the 80,375 persons in the PLCO control and intervention groups who had ever smoked. Discrimination (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve [AUC]) and calibration were assessed. In the validation data set, 14,144 of 37,332 persons (37.9%) met NLST criteria. For comparison, 14,144 highest-risk persons were considered positive (eligible for screening) according to PLCO(M2012) criteria. We compared the accuracy of PLCO(M2012) criteria with NLST criteria to detect lung cancer. Cox models were used to evaluate whether the reduction in mortality among 53,202 persons undergoing low-dose computed tomographic screening in the NLST differed according to risk. RESULTS: The AUC was 0.803 in the development data set and 0.797 in the validation data set. As compared with NLST criteria, PLCO(M2012) criteria had improved sensitivity (83.0% vs. 71.1%, P<0.001) and positive predictive value (4.0% vs. 3.4%, P=0.01), without loss of specificity (62.9% and. 62.7%, respectively; P=0.54); 41.3% fewer lung cancers were missed. The NLST screening effect did not vary according to PLCO(M2012) risk (P=0.61 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the PLCO(M2012) model was more sensitive than the NLST criteria for lung-cancer detection.

Unusual presentation of a rare cancer: histiocytic sarcoma in the brain 16 years after treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Histiocytic sarcoma (HS) is a very rare hematopoietic neoplasm that has been reported in association with other hematological malignancies. Presentation of HS in the central nervous system is even less common. Diagnosis of HS requires the presence of histiocytic markers and the systematic exclusion of markers of other cell lineages. Primary HS central nervous system tumors are aggressive and generally have poor outcomes. There are no standard treatment guidelines due to lack of clinical trials and a limited number of case reports. Here we present a unique case with two primary histiocytic lesions in the brain, refractory to systemic and radiation therapies, that developed after being treated for T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia 16 years prior.

Prediagnostic serum levels of cytokines and other immune markers and risk of non-hodgkin lymphoma.

Although severe immune dysregulation is an established risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), it is unclear whether subclinical immune system function influences lymphomagenesis. To address this question, we conducted a nested case-control study within the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial to investigate whether circulating levels of cytokines and other immune markers are associated with future risk of NHL. Selected cytokines [interleukin (IL)-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNF-α] and other immune markers [soluble TNF receptor 1 (sTNF-R1), sTNF-R2, C-reactive protein, and sCD27] were measured in prediagnostic serum specimens from 297 incident NHL cases and 297 individually matched controls. ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) relating quartiles of analyte concentration to NHL risk were calculated by using conditional logistic regression. Statistically significant associations with increased NHL risk were observed for elevated serum levels of sTNF-R1 (quartile 4 vs. quartile 1: OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.8; P(trend) = 0.02) and sCD27 (OR = 5.3, 95% CI: 2.9-9.4; P(trend) < 0.0001). These associations remained in analyses of cases diagnosed longer than 6 years following blood collection (sTNF-R1: OR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.0-4.0, P(trend) = 0.01; sCD27: OR = 4.1, 95% CI: 1.9-8.5, P(trend) = 0.0001). Elevated levels of IL-10, TNF-α and sTNF-R2 were also significantly associated with increased risk of NHL overall; however, these associations weakened with increasing time from blood collection to case diagnosis and were null for cases diagnosed longer than 6 years postcollection. Our findings for sTNF-R1 and sCD27, possible markers for inflammatory and B-cell stimulatory states, respectively, support a role for subclinical inflammation and chronic B-cell stimulation in lymphomagenesis.

Lung cancer risk prediction: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal And Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial models and validation.

INTRODUCTION: Identification of individuals at high risk for lung cancer should be of value to individuals, patients, clinicians, and researchers. Existing prediction models have only modest capabilities to classify persons at risk accurately. METHODS: Prospective data from 70 962 control subjects in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) were used in models for the general population (model 1) and for a subcohort of ever-smokers (N = 38 254) (model 2). Both models included age, socioeconomic status (education), body mass index, family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recent chest x-ray, smoking status (never, former, or current), pack-years smoked, and smoking duration. Model 2 also included smoking quit-time (time in years since ever-smokers permanently quit smoking). External validation was performed with 44 223 PLCO intervention arm participants who completed a supplemental questionnaire and were subsequently followed. Known available risk factors were included in logistic regression models. Bootstrap optimism-corrected estimates of predictive performance were calculated (internal validation). Nonlinear relationships for age, pack-years smoked, smoking duration, and quit-time were modeled using restricted cubic splines. All reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS: During follow-up (median 9.2 years) of the control arm subjects, 1040 lung cancers occurred. During follow-up of the external validation sample (median 3.0 years), 213 lung cancers occurred. For models 1 and 2, bootstrap optimism-corrected receiver operator characteristic area under the curves were 0.857 and 0.805, and calibration slopes (model-predicted probabilities vs observed probabilities) were 0.987 and 0.979, respectively. In the external validation sample, models 1 and 2 had area under the curves of 0.841 and 0.784, respectively. These models had high discrimination in women, men, whites, and nonwhites. CONCLUSION: The PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.

Lung cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: The 5-year overall survival rate of lung cancer patients is approximately 15%. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease and have shorter survival rates than patients with early-stage disease. Although screening for lung cancer has the potential to increase early diagnosis, it has not been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality rates. In 1993, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was initiated specifically to determine whether screening would reduce mortality rates from PLCO cancers. METHODS: A total of 77 464 participants, aged 55-74 years, were randomly assigned to the intervention arm of the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial between November 8, 1993, and July 2, 2001. Participants received a baseline chest radiograph (CXR), followed by three annual single-view CXRs at the 10 US screening centers. Cancers were classified as screen detected and nonscreen detected (interval or never screened) and according to tumor histology. The positivity rates of screen-detected cancers and positive predictive values (PPVs) were calculated. Because 51.6% of the participants were current or former smokers, logistic regression analysis was performed to control for smoking status. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Compliance with screening decreased from 86.6% at baseline to 78.9% at the last screening. Overall positivity rates were 8.9% at baseline and 6.6%-7.1% at subsequent screenings; positivity rates increased modestly with smoking risk categories (P(trend) < .001). The PPVs for all participants were 2.0% at baseline and 1.1%, 1.5%, and 2.4% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively; PPVs in current smokers were 5.9% at baseline and 3.3%, 4.2%, and 5.6% at years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. A total of 564 lung cancers were diagnosed, of which 306 (54%) were screen-detected cancers and 87% were non-small cell lung cancers. Among non-small cell lung cancers, 59.6% of screen-detected cancers and 33.3% of interval cancers were early (I-II) stage. CONCLUSIONS: The PLCO Cancer Screening Trial demonstrated the ability to recruit, retain, and screen a large population over multiple years at multiple centers. A higher proportion of screen-detected lung cancers were early stage, but a conclusion on the effectiveness of CXR screening must await final PLCO results, which are anticipated at the end of 2015.

Factors associated with human small aggressive non small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Some non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) progress to distant lymph nodes or metastasize while relatively small. Such small aggressive NSCLCs (SA-NSCLC) are no longer resectable with curative intent, carry a grave prognosis, and may involve unique biological pathways. This is a study of factors associated with SA-NSCLC. METHODS: A nested case-case study was embedded in the National Cancer Institute's Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. SA-NSCLC cases had stage T1, N3, and/or M1 NSCLC (n = 48) and non-SA-NSCLC cases had T2 to T3, N0 to N2, and M0 NSCLC (n = 329). Associations were assessed by multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: SA-NSCLCs were associated with younger age at diagnosis [odds ratio (OR)(>or=65 versus <65), 0.44; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.22-0.88], female gender, family history of lung cancer, and the interaction gender*family history of lung cancer and were inversely associated with ibuprofen use (OR(yes versus no), 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.76). The ORs for associating gender (women versus men) with SA-NSCLC in those with and without a family history of lung cancer were 11.76 (95% CI, 2.00-69.22) and 1.86 (95% CI, 0.88-3.96), respectively. These associations held adjusted for histology and time from screening to diagnosis and when alternative controls were assessed. CONCLUSION: SA-NSCLC was associated with female gender, especially in those with a family history of lung cancer. If these exploratory findings, which are subject to bias, are validated as causal, elucidation of the genetic and female factors involved may improve understanding of cancer progression and lead to preventions and therapies. Ibuprofen may inhibit lung cancer progression.

Suspected clopidogrel resistance in a patient with acute stent thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: A 67-year-old man with supraventricular tachycardia associated with angina underwent coronary angiographic assessment. This investigation revealed mild coronary artery disease in his left main coronary artery and significant stenosis of the ramus medianus (left intermediate artery). A drug-eluting stent was deployed and treatment with clopidogrel and eptifibatide started. The patient subsequently developed chest pain accompanied by hypotension, hypoxemia and electrocardiographic changes that indicated acute myocardial infarction. Emergency angiography revealed occlusion of the ramus medianus despite clopidogrel therapy. INVESTIGATIONS: Coronary angiography, hypercoagulable work up and platelet function tests. DIAGNOSIS: Acute stent thrombosis and suspected clopidogrel resistance, culminating in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention. MANAGEMENT: Warfarin, aspirin and clopidogrel drug therapy.