Sex differences in survival outcomes of early-onset colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most fatal cancers in the United States. Although the overall incidence and mortality rates are declining, an alarming rise in early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC), defined as CRC diagnosis in patients aged < 50 years, was previously reported. Our study focuses on analyzing sex-specific differences in survival among EOCRC patients and comparing sex-specific predictors of survival in both males and females in the United States. We retrieved and utilized data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. EOCRC patients, between the ages of 20 and 49, were exclusively included. We conducted thorough survival analyses using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, Cox regression models, and propensity score matching to control for potential biases. Our study included 58,667 EOCRC patients (27,662 females, 31,005 males) diagnosed between 2000 and 2017. The baseline characteristics at the time of diagnosis were significantly heterogeneous between males and females. Males exhibited significantly worse overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and noncancer-specific survival (NCSS) in comparison to females in both the general cohort, and the matched cohort. Predictors of survival outcomes generally followed a similar pattern in both sexes except for minor differences. In conclusion, we identified sex as an independent prognostic factor of EOCRC, suggesting disparities in survival between sexes. Further understanding of the epidemiological and genetic bases of these differences could facilitate targeted, personalized therapeutic approaches for EOCRC.

AI chatbots show promise but limitations on UK medical exam questions: a comparative performance study.

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have potential applications in medical education such as helping students study for their licensing exams by discussing unclear questions with them. However, they require evaluation on these complex tasks. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how well publicly accessible LLMs performed on simulated UK medical board exam questions. 423 board-style questions from 9 UK exams (MRCS, MRCP, etc.) were answered by seven LLMs (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Bard, Perplexity, Claude, Bing, Claude Instant). There were 406 multiple-choice, 13 true/false, and 4 "choose N" questions covering topics in surgery, pediatrics, and other disciplines. The accuracy of the output was graded. Statistics were used to analyze differences among LLMs. Leaked questions were excluded from the primary analysis. ChatGPT 4.0 scored (78.2%), Bing (67.2%), Claude (64.4%), and Claude Instant (62.9%). Perplexity scored the lowest (56.1%). Scores differed significantly between LLMs overall (p < 0.001) and in pairwise comparisons. All LLMs scored higher on multiple-choice vs true/false or "choose N" questions. LLMs demonstrated limitations in answering certain questions, indicating refinements needed before primary reliance in medical education. However, their expanding capabilities suggest a potential to improve training if thoughtfully implemented. Further research should explore specialty specific LLMs and optimal integration into medical curricula.

Exploring the risk of second primary malignancies in laryngeal cancer survivors: insights from the SEER database.

PURPOSE: We intended to investigate the risk for second primary malignancy (SPM) development in Laryngeal Cancer (LC) survivors. We conducted a population-based analysis of SPM risk using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. METHODS: Data of selected LC survivors from the SEER database between 2000 and 2020 were examined. Standardized Incidence ratios (SIRs) for SPM development were calculated, followed by detailed stratification according to anatomical site and different latency periods. RESULTS: A total of 8413 SPMs were observed in our extracted cohort. The collective standardized incidence of SPMs was 2.12 (95% CI 2.07-2.17) compared to the US population, with an absolute excess risk (AER) of 201.73 per 10,000 individuals. The highest SPM risks were observed in patients with young age at diagnosis, females, and American Indians/Alaska natives. Increased SPM risks were reported in patients receiving all modalities of treatment including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. Most SPMs were detected in solid organs such as the lungs and bronchus, oral cavity and pharynx, and prostate. The highest increased risks of developing SPMs were observed in Trachea, larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, lung and bronchus, and esophagus. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of SPMs in LC survivors was significantly increased compared to the general US population. Accordingly, a more impactful cancer surveillance strategy for LC patients should be implemented.

Causes of death among patients with cutaneous melanoma: a US population-based study.

Research on mortality outcomes and non-cancer-related causes of death in patients with cutaneous melanoma (CM) remains limited. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of non-cancer-related deaths following CM diagnosis. The data of 224,624 patients diagnosed with malignant CM in the United States between 2000 and 2019 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. We stratified our cohort based on their melanoma stage at diagnosis and further calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for each cause of death, comparing their relative risk to that of the general US population. The total number of fatalities among melanoma patients was 60,110, representing 26.8% of the total cases. The percentage of deaths is directly proportional to the disease stage, reaching 80% in distant melanoma. The highest fatalities among the localized melanoma group (25,332; 60.5%) occurred from non-cancer causes, followed by melanoma-attributable deaths (10,817; 25.8%). Conversely, melanoma is the leading cause of death in regional and distant melanoma cohorts. Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases were the most prevalent non-cancer causes of death among the three disease-stage cohorts. Compared to the general population, we did not observe an increased risk of death due to non-cancer causes in the localized CM cohort, while patients diagnosed with regional and distant CMs had a statistically significant higher risk of death from all the reported major causes of death.

Causes of death after laryngeal cancer diagnosis: A US population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Several reports examined the survival of laryngeal cancer (LC) patients, most of these studies only focused on the prognosis of the disease, and just a small number of studies examined non-cancer-related causes of death. The objective of the current study is to investigate and quantify the most common causes of deaths following LC diagnosis. METHODS: The data of 44,028 patient with LC in the United States diagnosed between 2000 and 2018 were retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and analyzed. We stratified LC patients according to various demographic and clinical parameters and calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for all causes of death. RESULTS: Over the follow-up period, 25,407 (57.7%) deaths were reported. The highest fatalities (11,121; 43.8%) occurred within 1-5 years following LC diagnosis. Non-cancer causes of death is the leading cause of death (8945; 35.2%), followed by deaths due to laryngeal cancer (8,705; 34.3%), then other cancers deaths (7757; 30.5%). The most common non-cancer causes of death were heart diseases (N = 2953; SMR 4.42), followed by other non-cancer causes of death (N = 1512; SMR 3.93), chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (N = 1420; SMR 4.90), then cerebrovascular diseases (N = 547; SMR 4.28). Compared to the general population, LC patients had a statistically significant higher risk of death from all reported causes. CONCLUSIONS: Non-cancer causes of death is the leading cause of death in LC patients, exceeding deaths attributed to LC itself. These findings provide important insight into how LC survivors should be counselled regarding future health risks.