Gender differences in colorectal cancer screening and incidence in large nationwide, population-based cohorts

Background. A few studies have reported gender differences along the colorectal cancer (CRC) continuum but none has done so longitudinally to compare a cancer and a non-cancer populations.^ Objectives and Methods. To examine gender differences in colorectal cancer screening (CRCS); to examine trends in gender differences in CRC screening among two groups of patients (Medicare beneficiaries with and without cancer); to examine gender differences in CRC incidence; and to examine for any differences over time. In Paper 1, the study population consisted of men and women, ages 67–89 years, with CRC (73,666) or without any cancer (39,006), residing in 12 U.S. Surveillance Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER) regions. Crude and age-adjusted percentages and odds ratios of receiving fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or colonoscopy (COL) were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess gender on the odds of receiving CRC screening over time.^ In Paper 2, age-adjusted incidence rates and proportions over time were reported across race, CRC subsite, CRC stage and SEER region for 373,956 patients, ages 40+ years, residing in 9 SEER regions and diagnosed with malignant CRC. ^ Results. Overall, women had higher CRC screening rates than men and screening rates in general were higher in the SEER sample of persons with CRC diagnosis. Significant temporal divergence in FOBT screening was observed between men and women in both cohorts. Although the largest temporal increases in screening rates were found for COL, especially among the cohort with CRC, little change in the gender gap was observed over time. Receipt of FOBT was significantly associated with female gender especially in the period of full Medicare coverage. Receipt of COL was also significantly associated with male gender, especially in the period of limited Medicare coverage.^ Overall, approximately equal numbers of men (187,973) and women (185,983) were diagnosed with malignant CRC. Men had significantly higher age-adjusted CRC incidence rates than women across all categories of age, race, subsite, stage and SEER region even though rates declined in all categories over time. Significant moderate increases in rate difference occurred among 40-59 year olds; significant reductions occurred among patients age 70+, within subsite rectum, unstaged and distant stage CRC, and eastern and western SEER regions. ^ Conclusions. Persistent gender differences in CRC incidence across time may have implications for gender-based interventions that take age into consideration. A shift toward proximal cancer was observed over time for both genders, but the high proportion of men who develop rectal cancer suggests that a greater proportion of men may need to be targeted with newer screening methods such as fecal DNA or COL. Although previous reports have documented higher CRC screening among men, higher incidence of CRC observed among men suggests that higher risk categories of men are probably not being reached. FOBT utilization rates among women have increased over time and the gender gap has widened between 1998 and 2005. COL utilization is associated with male gender but the differences over time are small.^

No evidence for association of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene T2119C and C3161G amino acid substitution variants with risk of breast cancer

Background There is evidence that certain mutations in the double-strand break repair pathway ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene act in a dominant-negative manner to increase the risk of breast cancer. There are also some reports to suggest that the amino acid substitution variants T2119C Ser707Pro and C3161G Pro1054Arg may be associated with breast cancer risk. We investigate the breast cancer risk associated with these two nonconservative amino acid substitution variants using a large Australian population-based case–control study. Methods The polymorphisms were genotyped in more than 1300 cases and 600 controls using 5' exonuclease assays. Case–control analyses and genotype distributions were compared by logistic regression. Results The 2119C variant was rare, occurring at frequencies of 1.4 and 1.3% in cases and controls, respectively (P = 0.8). There was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.8), and the TC genotype was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = 0.59–1.97, P = 0.8). Similarly, the 3161G variant was no more common in cases than in controls (2.9% versus 2.2%, P = 0.2), there was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.1), and the CG genotype was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.85–1.98, P = 0.2). This lack of evidence for an association persisted within groups defined by the family history of breast cancer or by age. Conclusion The 2119C and 3161G amino acid substitution variants are not associated with moderate or high risks of breast cancer in Australian women.

Clinical Accuracy of the MedGem Indirect Calorimeter for Measuring Resting Energy Expenditure in Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE: To compare, in patients with cancer and in healthy subjects, measured resting energy expenditure (REE) from traditional indirect calorimetry to a new portable device (MedGem) and predicted REE. DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical validation study. SETTING: Private radiation oncology centre, Brisbane, Australia. SUBJECTS: Cancer patients (n = 18) and healthy subjects (n = 17) aged 37-86 y, with body mass indices ranging from 18 to 42 kg/m(2). INTERVENTIONS: Oxygen consumption (VO(2)) and REE were measured by VMax229 (VM) and MedGem (MG) indirect calorimeters in random order after a 12-h fast and 30-min rest. REE was also calculated from the MG without adjustment for nitrogen excretion (MGN) and estimated from Harris-Benedict prediction equations. Data were analysed using the Bland and Altman approach, based on a clinically acceptable difference between methods of 5%. RESULTS: The mean bias (MGN-VM) was 10% and limits of agreement were -42 to 21% for cancer patients; mean bias -5% with limits of -45 to 35% for healthy subjects. Less than half of the cancer patients (n = 7, 46.7%) and only a third (n = 5, 33.3%) of healthy subjects had measured REE by MGN within clinically acceptable limits of VM. Predicted REE showed a mean bias (HB-VM) of -5% for cancer patients and 4% for healthy subjects, with limits of agreement of -30 to 20% and -27 to 34%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Limits of agreement for the MG and Harris Benedict equations compared to traditional indirect calorimetry were similar but wide, indicating poor clinical accuracy for determining the REE of individual cancer patients and healthy subjects.