Survival in dialysis patients is different between patients with diabetes as primary renal disease and patients with diabetes as a co-morbid condition.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS:

A previous study in Dutch dialysis patients showed no survival difference between patients with diabetes as primary renal disease and those with diabetes as a co-morbid condition. As this was not in line with our hypothesis, we aimed to verify these results in a larger international cohort of dialysis patients.

METHODS:

For the present prospective study, we used data from the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry. Incident dialysis patients with data on co-morbidities (n?=?15,419) were monitored until kidney transplantation, death or end of the study period (5 years). Cox regression was performed to compare survival for patients with diabetes as primary renal disease, patients with diabetes as a co-morbid condition and non-diabetic patients.

RESULTS:

Of the study population, 3,624 patients (24%) had diabetes as primary renal disease and 1,193 (11%) had diabetes as a co-morbid condition whereas the majority had no diabetes (n?=?10,602). During follow-up, 7,584 (49%) patients died. In both groups of diabetic patients mortality was higher compared with the non-diabetic patients. Mortality was higher in patients with diabetes as primary renal disease than in patients with diabetes as a co-morbid condition, adjusted for age, sex, country and malignancy (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10, 1.30). An analysis stratified by dialysis modality yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:

Overall mortality was significantly higher in patients with diabetes as primary renal disease compared with those with diabetes as a co-morbid condition. This suggests that survival in diabetic dialysis patients is affected by the extent to which diabetes has induced organ damage.

Substrates modified by advanced glycation end-products cause dysfunction and death in retinal pericytes by reducing survival signals mediated by platelet-derived growth factor

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Premature death of retinal pericytes is a pathophysiological hallmark of diabetic retinopathy. Among the mechanisms proposed for pericyte death is exposure to AGE, which accumulate during diabetes. The current study used an in vitro model, whereby retinal pericytes were exposed to AGE-modified substrate and the mechanisms underlying pericyte death explored. METHODS: Pericytes were isolated from bovine retinal capillaries and propagated on AGE-modified basement membrane (BM) extract or non-modified native BM. The extent of AGE modification was analysed. Proliferative responses of retinal pericytes propagated on AGE-modified BM were investigated using a 5-bromo-2-deoxy-uridine-based assay. The effect of extrinsically added platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) isoforms on these proliferative responses was also analysed alongside mRNA expression of the PDGF receptors. Apoptotic death of retinal pericytes grown on AGE-modified BM was investigated using terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end-labelling labelling, mitochondrial membrane depolarisation and by morphological assessment. We also measured both the ability of PDGF to reverse Akt dephosphorylation that was mediated by AGE-modified BM, and increased pericyte apoptosis. RESULTS: Retinal pericytes exposed to AGE-modified BM showed reduced proliferative responses in comparison to controls (p

PTGS2 (Cyclooxygenase-2) expression and survival among colorectal cancer patients: A systematic review

Background: Studies have examined whether tumor expression of PTGS2 (also known as COX-2), an enzyme inhibited by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin, is associated with prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. However, results to date have been mixed. Methods: Using terms for PTGS2 and colorectal cancer, the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies published, in any language, until December 2011. Random effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled HRs [95% confidence intervals (CI)] for the association between PTGS2 expression and tumor recurrence, colorectal cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. Results: In total, 29 studies, which had prognostic data on 5,648 patients, met the inclusion criteria. PTGS2- positive patients were at an increased risk of tumor recurrence (n = 9 studies; HR, 2.79; 95% CI, 1.76-4.41; P <0.001) and had poorer colorectal cancer-specific survival (n = 7; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.82; P = 0.04). However, there was funnel plot asymmetry, possibly due to publication bias, for the association with cancerspecific survival but less so for recurrence. PTGS2 expression was not associated with overall survival [(n= 16; pooled unadjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.94-1.79; P=0.11) and (n=9; pooled adjusted HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.72-1.45; P = 0.91)]. Conclusions: PTGS2 expression was associated with an increased risk of tumor recurrence and poorer colorectal cancer-specific survival but not overall survival among patients with colorectal cancer. However, confounding by tumor characteristics such as tumor stage seems likely. Impact: There is insufficient evidence to recommend PTGS2 expression as a prognostic marker in patients with colorectal cancer. Furthermore, studies providing adjusted results are required. © 2013 AACR.

Differences in cancer awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership):Do they contribute to differences in cancer survival?

Background:There are wide international differences in 1-year cancer survival. The UK and Denmark perform poorly compared with other high-income countries with similar health care systems: Australia, Canada and Sweden have good cancer survival rates, Norway intermediate survival rates. The objective of this study was to examine the pattern of differences in cancer awareness and beliefs across these countries to identify where these might contribute to the pattern of survival.Methods:We carried out a population-based telephone interview survey of 19 079 men and women aged =50 years in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure.Results:Awareness that the risk of cancer increased with age was lower in the UK (14%), Canada (13%) and Australia (16%) but was higher in Denmark (25%), Norway (29%) and Sweden (38%). Symptom awareness was no lower in the UK and Denmark than other countries. Perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation were highest in the UK, in particular being worried about wasting the doctor's time (UK 34%; Canada 21%; Australia 14%; Denmark 12%; Norway 11%; Sweden 9%).Conclusion:The UK had low awareness of age-related risk and the highest perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation, but symptom awareness in the UK did not differ from other countries. Denmark had higher awareness of age-related risk and few perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation. This suggests that other factors must be involved in explaining Denmark's poor survival rates. In the UK, interventions that address barriers to prompt presentation in primary care should be developed and evaluated. © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.

Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000-2007:A population-based study

Background: We investigate whether differences in breast cancer survival in six high-income countries can be explained by differences in stage at diagnosis using routine data from population-based cancer registries. Methods: We analysed the data on 257 362 women diagnosed with breast cancer during 2000-7 and registered in 13 population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Flexible parametric hazard models were used to estimate net survival and the excess hazard of dying from breast cancer up to 3 years after diagnosis.Results:Age-standardised 3-year net survival was 87-89% in the UK and Denmark, and 91-94% in the other four countries. Stage at diagnosis was relatively advanced in Denmark: only 30% of women had Tumour, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) stage I disease, compared with 42-45% elsewhere. Women in the UK had low survival for TNM stage III-IV disease compared with other countries. Conclusion: International differences in breast cancer survival are partly explained by differences in stage at diagnosis, and partly by differences in stage-specific survival. Low overall survival arises if the stage distribution is adverse (e.g. Denmark) but stage-specific survival is normal; or if the stage distribution is typical but stage-specific survival is low (e.g. UK). International differences in staging diagnostics and stage-specific cancer therapies should be investigated. © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.

Predictions of survival up to 10 years after diagnosis for European women with breast cancer in 2000-2002

Few studies have addressed longer-term survival for breast cancer in European women. We have made predictions of 10-year survival for European women diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000-2002. Data for 114,312 adult women (15-99 years) diagnosed with a first primary malignant cancer of the breast during 2000-2002 were collected in the EUROCARE-4 study from 24 population-based cancer registries in 14 European countries. We estimated relative survival at 1, 5, and 10 years after diagnosis for women who were alive at some point during 2000-2002, using the period approach. We also estimated 10-year survival conditional on survival to 1 and 5 years after diagnosis. Ten-year survival exceeded 70% in most regions, but was only 54% in Eastern Europe, with the highest value in Northern Europe (about 75%). Ten-year survival conditional on survival for 1 year was 2-6% higher than 10-year survival in all European regions, and geographic differences were smaller. Ten-year survival for women who survived at least 5 years was 88% overall, with the lowest figure in Eastern Europe (79%) and the highest in the UK (91%). Women aged 50-69 years had higher overall survival than older and younger women (79%). Six cancer registries had adequate information on stage at diagnosis; in these jurisdictions, 10-year survival was 89% for local, 62% for regional and 10% for metastatic disease. Data on stage are not collected routinely or consistently, yet these data are essential for meaningful comparison of population-based survival, which provides vital information for improving breast cancer control. What's new? Policy-makers and health-care planners need accurate data on long-term survival to improve cancer control. This Europe-wide study of 10-year survival identified low survival in Eastern Europe for women with breast cancer in 2000-2002, and wide variation by age at diagnosis. Data on stage at diagnosis are crucial for meaningful comparison of population-based survival, and fundamental for improving breast cancer control, but our analyses confirmed that stage data are not collected routinely or consistently Copyright © 2012 UICC.

Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK:A population-based study, 2004-2007

Background: The authors consider whether differences in stage at diagnosis could explain the variation in lung cancer survival between six developed countries in 2004-2007. Methods: Routinely collected population-based data were obtained on all adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with lung cancer in 2004-2007 and registered in regional and national cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Stage data for 57 352 patients were consolidated from various classification systems. Flexible parametric hazard models on the log cumulative scale were used to estimate net survival at 1 year and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis. Results: Age-standardised 1-year net survival from non-small cell lung cancer ranged from 30% (UK) to 46% (Sweden). Patients in the UK and Denmark had lower survival than elsewhere, partly because of a more adverse stage distribution. However, there were also wide international differences in stage-specific survival. Net survival from TNM stage I non-small cell lung cancer was 16% lower in the UK than in Sweden, and for TNM stage IV disease survival was 10% lower. Similar patterns were found for small cell lung cancer. Conclusions: There are comparability issues when using population-based data but, even given these constraints, this study shows that, while differences in stage at diagnosis explain some of the international variation in overall lung cancer survival, wide disparities in stage-specific survival exist, suggesting that other factors are also important such as differences in treatment. Stage should be included in international cancer survival studies and the comparability of population-based data should be improved.

Stage at diagnosis and colorectal cancer survival in six high-income countries:A population-based study of patients diagnosed during 2000-2007

Background. Large international differences in colorectal cancer survival exist, even between countries with similar healthcare. We investigate the extent to which stage at diagnosis explains these differences. Methods. Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK were analysed for 313 852 patients diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer during 2000-2007. We compared the distributions of stage at diagnosis. We estimated both stage-specific net survival and the excess hazard of death up to three years after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log-cumulative excess hazard scale. Results. International differences in colon and rectal cancer stage distributions were wide: Denmark showed a distribution skewed towards later-stage disease, while Australia, Norway and the UK showed high proportions of 'regional' disease. One-year colon cancer survival was 67% in the UK and ranged between 71% (Denmark) and 80% (Australia and Sweden) elsewhere. For rectal cancer, one-year survival was also low in the UK (75%), compared to 79% in Denmark and 82-84% elsewhere. International survival differences were also evident for each stage of disease, with the UK showing consistently lowest survival at one and three years. Conclusion. Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international differences in colorectal cancer survival, with a more adverse stage distribution contributing to comparatively low survival in Denmark. Differences in stage distribution could arise because of differences in diagnostic delay and awareness of symptoms, or in the thoroughness of staging procedures. Nevertheless, survival differences also exist for each stage of disease, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment, particularly in the UK. © 2013 Informa Healthcare.

Stage at diagnosis and ovarian cancer survival:Evidence from the international cancer benchmarking partnership

Objective: We investigate what role stage at diagnosis bears in international differences in ovarian cancer survival. Methods: Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the UK were analysed for 20,073 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2004-07. We compare the stage distribution between countries and estimate stage-specific one-year net survival and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log cumulative excess hazard scale. Results: One-year survival was 69% in the UK, 72% in Denmark and 74-75% elsewhere. In Denmark, 74% of patients were diagnosed with FIGO stages III-IV disease, compared to 60-70% elsewhere. International differences in survival were evident at each stage of disease; women in the UK had lower survival than in the other four countries for patients with FIGO stages III-IV disease (61.4% vs. 65.8-74.4%). International differences were widest for older women and for those with advanced stage or with no stage data. Conclusion: Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international variation in ovarian cancer survival, and a more adverse stage distribution contributes to comparatively low survival in Denmark. This could arise because of differences in tumour biology, staging procedures or diagnostic delay. Differences in survival also exist within each stage, as illustrated by lower survival for advanced disease in the UK, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment. Population-based data on cancer survival by stage are vital for cancer surveillance, and global consensus is needed to make stage data in cancer registries more consistent. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to low-dose Ara-C improves remission rate but does not significantly prolong survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia:results from the LRF AML14 and NCRI AML16 pick-a-winner comparison

The treatment of older patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, who are not considered suitable for conventional intensive therapy, is unsatisfactory. Low-dose Ara-C(LDAC) has been established as superior to best supportive care, but only benefits the few patients who enter complete remission. Alternative or additional treatments are required to improve the situation. This randomised trial compared the addition of the immunoconjugate, gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO), at a dose of 5 mg on day 1 of each course of LDAC, with the intention of improving the remission rate and consequently survival. Between June 2004 and June 2010, 495 patients entered the randomisation. The addition of GO significantly improved the remission rate (30% vs 17%; odds ratio(OR) 0.48 (0.32-0.73); P=0.006), but not the 12 month overall survival (25% vs 27%). The reason for the induction benefit failing to improve OS was two-fold: survival of patients in the LDAC arm who did not enter remission and survival after relapse were both superior in the LDAC arm. Although the addition of GO to LDAC doubled the remission rate it did not improve overall survival. Maintaining remission in older patients remains elusive.

Dose, dose-rate and field size effects on cell survival following exposure to non-uniform radiation fields

For the delivery of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), highly modulated fields are used to achieve dose conformity across a target tumour volume. Recent in vitro evidence has demonstrated significant alterations in cell survival occurring out-of-field which cannot be accounted for on the basis of scattered dose. The radiobiological effect of area, dose and dose-rate on out-of-field cell survival responses following exposure to intensity-modulated radiation fields is presented in this study. Cell survival was determined by clonogenic assay in human prostate cancer (DU-145) and primary fibroblast (AG0-1522) cells following exposure to different modulated field configurations delivered using a X-Rad 225 kVp x-ray source. Uniform survival responses were compared to in- and out-of-field responses in which 25-99% of the cell population was shielded. Dose delivered to the out-of-field region was varied from 1.6-37.2% of that delivered to the in-field region using different levels of brass shielding. Dose rate effects were determined for 0.2-4 Gy min⁻¹ for uniform and modulated exposures with no effect seen in- or out-of-field. Survival responses showed little dependence on dose rate and area in- and out-of-field with a trend towards increased survival with decreased in-field area. Out-of-field survival responses were shown to scale in proportion to dose delivered to the in-field region and also local dose delivered out-of-field. Mathematical modelling of these findings has shown survival response to be highly dependent on dose delivered in- and out-of-field but not on area or dose rate. These data provide further insight into the radiobiological parameters impacting on cell survival following exposure to modulated irradiation fields highlighting the need for refinement of existing radiobiological models to incorporate non-targeted effects and modulated dose distributions.