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.

Inclusion of chemotherapy in addition to anthracycline in the treatment of acute promyelocytic leukaemia does not improve outcomes:results of the MRC AML15 trial

Two hundred eighty-five patients, median age 42, with PML-RARa-positive acute promyelocytic leukaemia were randomised to Ara-C-containing 'Medical Research Council (MRC) Chemotherapy'+ATRA (All-trans-retinoic acid) or anthracycline+ATRA (modified 'Spanish') therapy. MRC treatment comprised four courses with ATRA in courses 1-2. Spanish treatment comprised four anthracycline-based courses with ATRA in courses 1-3. In course 3 patients were randomised to gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) or not. The Spanish arm received 24-month maintenance. Patients were sequentially molecularly monitored. Quality of life was assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, 12, 24 months. Remission rates were similar in both arms (93%): cumulative incidence of haematological relapse (CIHR) was 6% at 5 years; 5 patients relapsed molecularly. Survival post relapse was 80%. There were more deaths in remission in the MRC arm (4% vs 10%: P=0.2). The overall 5-year relapse-free and overall survival was similar between arms (81% vs 82% and 84% vs 83%, respectively). More supportive care and hospitalisation (81.8 vs 63 days, P10 × 10(9)/l) was not prognostic overall, or within treatment arms. Both approaches deliver similar results with minor differences in quality of life. MRC treatment required more hospitalisation. This suggests that additional chemotherapy, Ara-C in particular, is not required.

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.

Beta-blocker usage and breast cancer survival: a nested case-control study within a UK clinical practice research datalink cohort.

Background: To investigate the association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and risk of cancer-specific mortality in a large population-based cohort of female breast cancer patients.

Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of breast cancer patients identified from cancer registries in England(using the National Cancer Data repository) and diagnosed between 1998 and 2007. Patients who had a breast cancer-specific death(ascertained from Office of National Statistics death registration data) were each matched to four alive controls by year and age at diagnosis. Prescription data for these patients were available through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Conditional logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between breast cancer-specific death and beta-blocker usage.

Results: Post-diagnostic use of beta-blockers was identified in 18.9% of 1435 breast cancer-specific deaths and 19.4% of their 5697 matched controls,indicating little evidence of association between beta-blocker use and breast cancer-specific mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.13]. There was also little evidence of an association when analyses were restricted to cardio non-selective beta-blockers (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.69, 1.17). Similar results were observed in analyses of drug dosage frequency and duration, and beta-blocker type.

Conclusions: In this large UK population-based cohort of breast cancer patients,there was little evidence of an association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and breast cancer progression. Further studies which include information on tumour receptor status are warranted to determine whether response to beta-blockers varies by tumour subtypes.