Changes in management and outcome of patients with rectal cancer in northern ireland:1996-2006

Aim This study aimed to document developments in rectal cancer services in a UK population and evaluate changes in outcome over a 10-year period.

Method Patients diagnosed with primary rectal carcinoma in 1996, 2001 and 2006 were identified by the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. Data were retrospectively collected on presentation, investigation, treatment and staging. Differences over the period were analysed using the chi-squared test; Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression tests were used for survival analysis.

Results After exclusions there were 636 patients, including 187 presenting in 1996, 203 in 2001 and 246 in 2006. The use of preoperative MRI of the rectum, endorectal ultrasound and abdominal CT increased during the study period. For patients treated by surgery, total mesorectal excision (TME) increased from 19% in 1996 to 64% in 2006 (P < 0.001). The use of radiotherapy (27% in 1996, 47% in 2006) and chemotherapy (21% in 1996, 32% in 2006) increased. The overall 5-year survival improved significantly between 1996 and 2006 from 34% in 1996 to 45% in 2006 (P = 0.02). Among patients having surgery, 5-year survival increased from 43% in 1996 to 63% in 2006 (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the improvement in survival was associated with TME and chemotherapy, while radiotherapy was not.

Conclusion Survival of patients with rectal cancer in Northern Ireland has improved significantly over the last decade, probably due to the increased use of TME and chemotherapy.

Keywords Surgery, rectum, oncology

What does this paper add to the literature?
This population-based study demonstrates a significant improvement in survival over recent years of rectal cancer patients in Northern Ireland. It concludes that surgical resection with TME and chemotherapy have had a significant impact on survival and that the improvement was not due to a stage-migration effect.

Drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin system and survival from cancer: a population based study of breast, colorectal and prostate cancer patient cohorts

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly prescribed to the growing number of cancer patients (more than two million in the UK alone) often to treat hypertension. However, increased fatal cancer in ARB users in a randomized trial and increased breast cancer recurrence rates in ACEI users in a recent observational study have raised concerns about their safety in cancer patients. We investigated whether ACEI or ARB use after breast, colorectal or prostate cancer diagnosis was associated with increased risk of cancer-specific mortality.

Methods: Population-based cohorts of 9,814 breast, 4,762 colorectal and 6,339 prostate cancer patients newly diagnosed from 1998 to 2006 were identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and confirmed by cancer registry linkage. Cancer-specific and all-cause mortality were identified from Office of National Statistics mortality data in 2011 (allowing up to 13 years of follow-up). A nested case–control analysis was conducted to compare ACEI/ARB use (from general practitioner prescription records) in cancer patients dying from cancer with up to five controls (not dying from cancer). Conditional logistic regression estimated the risk of cancer-specific, and all-cause, death in ACEI/ARB users compared with non-users.

Results: The main analysis included 1,435 breast, 1,511 colorectal and 1,184 prostate cancer-specific deaths (and 7,106 breast, 7,291 colorectal and 5,849 prostate cancer controls). There was no increase in cancer-specific mortality in patients using ARBs after diagnosis of breast (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 1.06 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84, 1.35), colorectal (adjusted OR = 0.82 95% CI 0.64, 1.07) or prostate cancer (adjusted OR = 0.79 95% CI 0.61, 1.03). There was also no evidence of increases in cancer-specific mortality with ACEI use for breast (adjusted OR = 1.06 95% CI 0.89, 1.27), colorectal (adjusted OR = 0.78 95% CI 0.66, 0.92) or prostate cancer (adjusted OR = 0.78 95% CI 0.66, 0.92).

Conclusions: Overall, we found no evidence of increased risks of cancer-specific mortality in breast, colorectal or prostate cancer patients who used ACEI or ARBs after diagnosis. These results provide some reassurance that these medications are safe in patients diagnosed with these cancers.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Breast cancer; Prostate cancer; Mortality; Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers

Low-dose aspirin and survival in men with prostate cancer: a study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Purpose: Aspirin use is associated with reduced risk of, and death from, prostate cancer. Our aim was to determine whether low-dose aspirin use after a prostate cancer diagnosis was associated with reduced prostate cancer-specific mortality.

Methods: A cohort of newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients (1998–2006) was identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (confirmed by cancer registry linkage). A nested case–control analysis was conducted using conditional logistic regression to compare aspirin usage in cases (prostate cancer deaths) with up to three controls (matched by age and year of diagnosis).

Results: Post-diagnostic low-dose aspirin use was identified in 52 % of 1,184 prostate cancer-specific deaths and 39 % of 3,531 matched controls (unadjusted OR 1.51, 95 % CI 1.19, 1.90; p < 0.001). After adjustment for confounders including treatment and comorbidities, this association was attenuated (adjusted OR 1.02 95 % CI 0.78, 1.34; p = 0.86). Adjustment for estrogen therapy accounted for the majority of this attenuation. There was also no evidence of dose–response association after adjustments. Compared with no use, patients with 1–11 prescriptions and 12 or more prescriptions had adjusted ORs of 1.07 (95 % CI 0.78, 1.47; p = 0.66) and 0.97 (95 % CI 0.69, 1.37; p = 0.88), respectively. There was no evidence of a protective association between low-dose aspirin use in the year prior to diagnosis and prostate cancer-specific mortality (adjusted OR 1.04 95 % CI 0.89, 1.22; p = 0.60).

Conclusion: We found no evidence of an association between low-dose aspirin use before or after diagnosis and risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality, after potential confounders were accounted for, in UK prostate cancer patients.

Post-diagnostic prescriptions for low-dose aspirin and breast cancer-specific survival: a nested case-control study in a breast cancer cohort from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

INTRODUCTION: Recent observational studies indicate that post-diagnostic use of aspirin in breast cancer patients may protect against cancer progression perhaps by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 dependent mechanisms. Evidence also supports a crucial role for interactions between tumour cells and circulating platelets in cancer growth and dissemination, therefore, use of low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk of death from cancer in breast cancer patients.

METHODS: A cohort of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (1998 to 2006) were identified in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (and confirmed by cancer registry linkage). Cancer-specific deaths were identified up to 2011 from Office for National Statistics mortality data. A nested case-control analysis was conducted using conditional logistic regression to compare post-diagnostic aspirin exposure using General Practice prescription data in 1,435 cases (breast cancer deaths) with 5,697 controls (matched by age and year of diagnosis).

RESULTS: After breast cancer diagnosis, 18.3% of cancer-specific deaths and 18.5% of matched controls received at least one prescription for low-dose aspirin, corresponding to an odds ratio (OR) of 0.98 (95% CI 0.83, 1.15). Adjustment for potential confounders (including stage and grade) had little impact on this estimate. No dose response relationship was observed when the number of tablets was investigated and no associations were seen when analyses were stratified by receipt of prescriptions for aspirin in the pre-diagnostic period, by stage at diagnosis or by receipt of prescriptions for hormone therapy.

CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in this large population-based cohort of breast cancer patients, there was little evidence of an association between receipt of post-diagnostic prescriptions for low-dose aspirin and breast cancer-specific death. However, information was not available on medication compliance or over-the-counter use of aspirin, which may have contributed to the null findings.

Cancer survivors with self-reported late effects: their health status, care needs and service utilisation

OBJECTIVE: Cancer survivors (CSs) are at risk of developing late effects (LEs) associated with the disease and its treatment. This paper compares the health status, care needs and use of health services by CSs with LEs and CSs without LEs.

METHODS: Cancer survivors (n = 613) were identified via the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and invited to participate in a postal survey that was administered by their general practitioner. The survey assessed self-reported LEs, health status, health service use and unmet care needs. A total of 289 (47%) CSs responded to the survey, and 93% of respondents completed a LEs scale.

RESULTS: Forty-one per cent (111/269) of CSs reported LEs. Survivors without LEs and survivors with LEs were comparable in terms of age and gender. The LEs group reported a significantly greater number of co-morbidities, lower physical health and mental health scores, greater overall health service use and more unmet needs. Unadjusted logistic regression analysis found that cancer site, time since diagnosis and treatment were significantly associated with reporting of LEs. CSs who received combination therapies compared with CSs who received single treatments were over two and a half times more likely to report LEs (OR = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.32-5.25) after controlling for all other variables.

CONCLUSIONS: The CS population with LEs comprises a particularly vulnerable group of survivors who have multiple health care problems and needs and who require tailored care plans that take account of LEs and their impact on health-related quality of life.

Self-reported psychosocial needs and health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer survivors

Purpose of the research
To investigate the prevalence and nature of unmet needs among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors and the relationship between needs and quality of life (QoL).

Methods and sample
Using the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry (NICR) as a sampling frame and working in collaboration with primary care physicians or GPs, the Cancer Survivors Unmet Needs (CaSUN) questionnaire and the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors Scale (QLACS) were posted to a randomly selected sample of 600 CRC survivors.

Key results
Approximately 69% (413/600) met eligibility criteria for participating in the study; and 30% (124/413) responded to the survey. A comparative analysis of NICR data between respondents and non-respondents did not indicate any systematic bias except that respondents appeared to be younger (65 years vs. 67 years). Approximately 60% of respondents reported having no unmet needs, with 40% reporting one or more unmet health and social care needs such as fear of recurrence, information needs, difficulty obtaining travel insurance and car parking problems. QoL was significantly lower for CRC survivors who reported an unmet need. Highest scores (poorer QoL) were reported for fatigue, welfare benefits and distress recurrence.

Conclusions
Overall, the majority of CRC survivors who had care needs appeared to have needs that were mainly psychosocial in nature and these unmet needs were related to poorer QoL.

Statin Use and Survival from Lung Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Background: Preclinical evidence from lung cancer cell lines and animal models suggest that statins could have anticancer properties. We investigated whether statin users had reduced risk of cancer-specific mortality in a population based cohort of lung cancer patients.
Methods: Newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, from 1998 to 2009, were identified from English cancer registry data and linked to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, providing prescription records, and to Office of National Statistics mortality data up to 2012. Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for cancer-specific mortality and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by statin use before and after diagnosis and to adjust these HRs for potential confounders.
Results: In 3,638 lung cancer patients, there was some evidence that statin use after diagnosis was associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality (adjusted HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.78, 1.02; P=0.09). Associations were more marked after 12 prescriptions (adjusted HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.67, 0.98; P=0.03) and when lipophilic statins were investigated (adjusted HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.70, 0.94; P=0.01) but were attenuated in some sensitivity analyses. Furthermore, in 11,051 lung cancer patients, statin use before diagnosis was associated with reduced lung cancer-specific mortality (adjusted HR=0.88, 95% CI, 0.83, 0.93; P<0.001).
Conclusions: There was some evidence that lung cancer patients who used statins, and particularly simvastatin, had reduced rates of cancer-specific mortality.
 Impact: These findings should first be confirmed in observational studies, but provide some support for conducting randomized controlled trials of simvastatin as adjuvant cancer therapy in lung cancer patients.

Colorectal cancer risk following adenoma removal: a large prospective population-based cohort study

Background: Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated significant reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality associated with polypectomy. However, little is known about whether polypectomy is effective at reducing CRC risk in routine clinical practice. The aim of this investigation was to quantify CRC risk following polypectomy in a large prospective population-based cohort study.

Methods: Patients with incident colorectal polyps between 2000 and 2005 in Northern Ireland (NI) were identified via electronic pathology reports received to the NI Cancer Registry (NICR). Patients were matched to the NICR to detect CRC and deaths up to 31st December 2010. CRC standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated and Cox proportional hazards modelling applied to determine CRC risk.

Results: During 44,724 person-years of follow-up, 193 CRC cases were diagnosed amongst 6,972 adenoma patients, representing an annual progression rate of 0.43%. CRC risk was significantly elevated in patients who had an adenoma removed (SIR 2.85; 95% CI: 2.61 to 3.25) compared with the general population. Male sex, older age, rectal site and villous architecture were associated with an increased CRC risk in adenoma patients. Further analysis suggested that not having a full colonoscopy performed at, or following, incident polypectomy contributed to the excess CRC risk.

Conclusions: CRC risk was elevated in individuals following polypectomy for adenoma, outside of screening programmes.

Impact: This finding emphasises the need for full colonoscopy and adenoma clearance, and appropriate surveillance, after endoscopic diagnosis of adenoma.