Dataset Information

The Effect of Advances in Lung-Cancer Treatment on Population Mortality.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lung cancer is made up of distinct subtypes, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Although overall mortality from lung cancer has been declining in the United States, little is known about mortality trends according to cancer subtype at the population level because death certificates do not record subtype information.

Methods

Using data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas, we assessed lung-cancer mortality and linked deaths from lung cancer to incident cases in SEER cancer registries. This allowed us to evaluate population-level mortality trends attributed to specific subtypes (incidence-based mortality). We also evaluated lung-cancer incidence and survival according to cancer subtype, sex, and calendar year. Joinpoint software was used to assess changes in incidence and trends in incidence-based mortality.

Results

Mortality from NSCLC decreased even faster than the incidence of this subtype, and this decrease was associated with a substantial improvement in survival over time that corresponded to the timing of approval of targeted therapy. Among men, incidence-based mortality from NSCLC decreased 6.3% annually from 2013 through 2016, whereas the incidence decreased 3.1% annually from 2008 through 2016. Corresponding lung cancer-specific survival improved from 26% among men with NSCLC that was diagnosed in 2001 to 35% among those in whom it was diagnosed in 2014. This improvement in survival was found across all races and ethnic groups. Similar patterns were found among women with NSCLC. In contrast, mortality from SCLC declined almost entirely as a result of declining incidence, with no improvement in survival. This result correlates with limited treatment advances for SCLC in the time frame we examined.

Conclusions

Population-level mortality from NSCLC in the United States fell sharply from 2013 to 2016, and survival after diagnosis improved substantially. Our analysis suggests that a reduction in incidence along with treatment advances - particularly approvals for and use of targeted therapies - is likely to explain the reduction in mortality observed during this period.

SUBMITTER: Howlader N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8577315 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMammography trials, which are the primary sources of evidence for screening benefit, were conducted decades ago. Whether advances in systemic therapies have rendered previously observed benefits of screening less significant is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of breast cancer screening trials had they been conducted using contemporary systemic treatments with outcomes of trials conducted with previously used treatments.DesignComputer simulation model of 3 virtual screening trials with similar reductions in advanced-stage cancer cases but reflecting treatment patterns in 1975 (prechemotherapy era), 1999, or 2015 (treatment according to receptor status).Data sourcesMeta-analyses of screening and treatment trials; study of dissemination of primary systemic treatments; SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry.Target populationU.S. women aged 50 to 74 years.Time horizon10 and 25 years.PerspectivePopulation.InterventionMammography, chemotherapy, tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, and trastuzumab.Outcome measuresBreast cancer mortality rate ratio (MRR) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) obtained by the difference in cumulative breast cancer mortality between control and screening groups.Results of base-case analysisAt 10 years, screening in a 1975 trial yielded an MRR of 90% and an ARR of 5 deaths per 10,000 women. A 2015 screening trial yielded a 10-year MRR of 90% and an ARR of 3 deaths per 10,000 women.Results of sensitivity analysisGreater reductions in advanced-stage disease yielded a greater screening effect, but MRRs remained similar across trials. However, ARRs were consistently lower under contemporary treatments. When contemporary treatments were available only for early-stage cases, the MRR was 88%.LimitationDisease models simplify reality and cannot capture all breast cancer subtypes.ConclusionAdvances in systemic therapies for breast cancer have not substantively reduced the relative benefits of screening but have likely reduced the absolute benefits because of their positive effect on breast cancer survival.Primary funding sourceUniversity of Washington and National Cancer Institute.

Project description:Background30-day mortality might be a useful indicator of avoidable harm to patients from systemic anticancer treatments, but data for this indicator are limited. The Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) dataset collated by Public Health England allows the assessment of factors affecting 30-day mortality in a national patient population. The aim of this first study based on the SACT dataset was to establish national 30-day mortality benchmarks for breast and lung cancer patients receiving SACT in England, and to start to identify where patient care could be improved.MethodsIn this population-based study, we included all women with breast cancer and all men and women with lung cancer residing in England, who were 24 years or older and who started a cycle of SACT in 2014 irrespective of the number of previous treatment cycles or programmes, and irrespective of their position within the disease trajectory. We calculated 30-day mortality after the most recent cycle of SACT for those patients. We did logistic regression analyses, adjusting for relevant factors, to examine whether patient, tumour, or treatment-related factors were associated with the risk of 30-day mortality. For each cancer type and intent, we calculated 30-day mortality rates and patient volume at the hospital trust level, and contrasted these in a funnel plot.FindingsBetween Jan 1, and Dec, 31, 2014, we included 23 228 patients with breast cancer and 9634 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in our regression and trust-level analyses. 30-day mortality increased with age for both patients with breast cancer and patients with NSCLC treated with curative intent, and decreased with age for patients receiving palliative SACT (breast curative: odds ratio [OR] 1·085, 99% CI 1·040-1·132; p<0·0001; NSCLC curative: 1·045, 1·013-1·079; p=0·00033; breast palliative: 0·987, 0·977-0·996; p=0·00034; NSCLC palliative: 0·987, 0·976-0·998; p=0·0015). 30-day mortality was also significantly higher for patients receiving their first reported curative or palliative SACT versus those who received SACT previously (breast palliative: OR 2·326 99% CI 1·634-3·312; p<0·0001; NSCLC curative: 3·371, 1·554-7·316; p<0·0001; NSCLC palliative: 2·667, 2·109-3·373; p<0·0001), and for patients with worse general wellbeing (performance status 2-4) versus those who were generally well (breast curative: 6·057, 1·333-27·513; p=0·0021; breast palliative: 6·241, 4·180-9·319; p<0·0001; NSCLC palliative: 3·384, 2·276-5·032; p<0·0001). We identified trusts with mortality rates in excess of the 95% control limits; this included seven for curative breast cancer, four for palliative breast cancer, five for curative NSCLC, and seven for palliative NSCLC.InterpretationOur findings show that several factors affect the risk of early mortality of breast and lung cancer patients in England and that some groups are at a substantially increased risk of 30-day mortality. The identification of hospitals with significantly higher 30-day mortality rates should promote review of clinical decision making in these hospitals. Furthermore, our results highlight the importance of collecting routine data beyond clinical trials to better understand the factors placing patients at higher risk of 30-day mortality, and ultimately improve clinical decision making. Our insights into the factors affecting risk of 30-day mortality will help treating clinicians and their patients predict the balance of harms and benefits associated with SACT.FundingPublic Health England.

Project description:Four out of five children diagnosed with cancer can be cured with contemporary cancer therapy. This represents a dramatic improvement since 50 years ago when the cure rate of childhood cancer was <25% in the pre-chemotherapy era. Over the past ten years, while improvement in overall survival (OS) has been marginal, progress in pediatric oncology lies with adopting risk-adapted therapeutic approach. This has been made possible through identifying clinical and biologic prognostic factors with rigorous research and stratifying patients using these risk factors, and subsequently modifying therapy according to risk group assignment. This review provides a perspective for eight distinct pediatric malignancies, in which significant advances in treatment were made in the last decade and are leading to changes in standard of care. This includes four hematologic malignancies [acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL)] and four solid tumors [medulloblastoma (MB), low grade glioma (LGG), neuroblastoma (NB) and Ewing sarcoma (ES)]. Together, they comprise 60% of childhood cancer. Improved patient outcome is not limited to better survival, but encompasses reducing both short and long-term treatment-related complications which is as important as cure, given the majority of childhood cancer patients will become long-term survivors. Risk-adapted approach allows treatment intensification in the high-risk cohort while therapy can be de-escalated in the low-risk to minimize toxicity and late sequelae without compromising survival. Advances in medical research technology have also led to a rapid increase in the understanding of the genetics of childhood cancer in the last decade, facilitating identification of molecular targets that can potentially be exploited for therapeutic benefits. As we move into the era of targeted therapeutics, searching for novel agents that target specific genetic lesions becomes a major research focus. We provide an overview of seven novel agents (bevacizumab, bortezomib, vorinostat, sorafenib, tipifarnib, erlotinib and mTOR inhibitors), which have been most frequently pursued in childhood cancers in the last decade, as well as reporting the progress of clinical trials involving these agents.