The role of smoking status on postoperative complications and survival in lung cancer patients presenting to M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

It is estimated that 50% of all lung cancer patients continue to smoke after diagnosis. Many of these lung cancer patients who are current smokers often experience tremendous guilt and responsibility for their disease, and feel it might be too late for them to quit smoking. In addition, many oncologists may be heard to say that it is 'too late', 'it doesn't matter', 'it is too difficult', 'it is too stressful' for their patients to stop smoking, or they never identify the smoking status of the patient. Many oncologists feel unprepared to address smoking cessation as part of their clinical practice. In reality, physicians can have tremendous effects on motivating patients, particularly when patients are initially being diagnosed with cancer. More information is needed to convince patients to quit smoking and to encourage clinicians to assist patients with their smoking cessation. ^ In this current study, smoking status at time of lung cancer diagnosis was assessed to examine its impact on complications and survival, after exploring the reliability of smoking data that is self-reported. Logistic Regression was used to determine the risks of smoking prior to lung resection. In addition, survival analysis was performed to examine the impact of smoking on survival. ^ The reliability of how patients report their smoking status was high, but there was some discordance between current smokers and recent quitters. In addition, we found that cigarette pack-year history and duration of smoking cessation were directly related to the rate of a pulmonary complication. In regards to survival, we found that current smoking at time of lung cancer diagnosis was an independent predictor of early stage lung cancer. This evidence supports the idea that it is "never too late" for patients to quit smoking and health care providers should incorporate smoking status regularly into their clinical practice.^

A comparison of lipoprotein measurements from the Dallas Heart Study

Conventional cholesterol markers in clinical practice today may systematically underestimate the true atherosclerotic risk of populations with high prevalence of metabolic perturbations. It has been suggested that atherogenic risk indexes that measure the concentration of atherogenic particle concentration rather then cholesterol may improve the recognition of atherogenic risk in a clinical setting. Particle concentration is strongly correlated with cholesterol markers, but only a fair concordance with cholesterol has been seen in male populations with low prevalence of metabolic perturbations. Little is known about the concordance of particle concentration and cholesterol markers in multiethnic populations with high prevalence of metabolic perturbations including both men and women. Furthermore, no study has looked at atherosclerosis while exploring the concordance of particle concentration and cholesterol. NMR total atherogenic particle concentration (LipoScience, Inc.), Non-HDL-C, and coronary CT were performed on 3054 subjects ages 30-65 from the Dallas Heart Study, a multi-ethnic probability-based population study. Patients were stratified into four groups: subjects with a low Non-HDL-C and low particle concentration (n = 929), subjects with high Non-HDL-C and low particle concentration (n = 88), subjects with low Non-HDL-C and high particle concentration, and subjects with high Non-HDL-C and high particle concentration (n = 950). When discordance was defined as two quintiles or more of disagreement, discordant groups were relatively small (n= 389, 12.6% of population). There was no statistically significant difference in prevalence of coronary calcification for the group with high Non-HDL-C and low particle concentration compared to the group with low Non-HDL-C and low particle concentration. The discordant group with low Non-HDL-C and low particle concentration, which included 88 subjects, had the highest prevalence of coronary calcification out of the four groups. Out of the 3054 subjects tested in this study, 88 subjects were considered to be part of the discordant group with low Non-HDL-C and a high particle concentration. Although this group is relatively small and comprise approximately 3% of the total population, they did have the highest prevalence of coronary calcification.^

Concordance between medical records and personal interview in ascertaining breast cancer and diabetes status: Analysis of the south Texas women's health project

Accurate ascertainment of risk factors and disease status is vital in public health research for proper classification of research subjects. The two most common ways of obtaining this data is by self-report and review of medical records (MRs). South Texas Women’s Health Project was a case-control study looking at interrelationships between hormones, diet, and body size and breast cancer among Hispanic women 30-79 years of age. History of breast cancer, diabetes mellitus (DM) and use of DM medications was ascertained from a personal interview. At the time of interview, the subject identified her major health care providers and signed the medical records release form, which was sent to the designated providers. The MRs were reviewed to confirm information obtained from the interview.^ Aim of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity between MRs and personal interview in diagnosis of breast cancer, DM and DM treatment. We also wanted to assess how successful our low-cost approach was in obtaining pertinent MRs and what factors influenced the quality of MR or interview data. Study sample was 721 women with both self-report and MR data available by June 2007. Overall response rate for MR requests was 74.5%. MRs were 80.9% sensitive and 100% specific in confirming breast cancer status. Prevalence of DM was 22.7% from the interviews and 16% from MRs. MRs did not provide definite information about DM status of 53.6% subjects. Sensitivity and specificity of MRs for DM status was 88.9% and 90.4% respectively. Disagreement on DM status from the two sources was seen in 15.9% subjects. This discordance was more common among older subjects, those who were married and were predominantly Spanish speaking. Income and level of education did not have a statistically significantly association with this disagreement.^ Both self-report and MRs underestimate the prevalence of DM. Relying solely on MRs leads to greater misclassification than relying on self-report data. MRs have good to excellent specificity and thus serve as a good tool to confirm information obtained from self-report. Self-report and MRs should be used in a complementary manner for accurate assessment of DM and breast cancer status.^