Sune F Nielsen1, Børge G Nordestgaard, Stig E Bojesen. 1. Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, and the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients surviving certain types of cancer are at increased risk of a second primary cancer. We tested the hypothesis that excess risk of a second primary cancer is due mainly to excess risk of it being the same type of cancer as the first, rather than to excess risk of it being a different type. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide study using data from three dabatases for the entire Danish population (n = 7,493,705) from 1980 through 2007. For each type of cancer, we performed a nested study matching each patient with incident cancer diagnosed in that period with up to five controls who did not have the examined cancer at the time of diagnosis. We used Cox regression models to calculate individual risk estimates and meta-analysis techniques to calculate aggregated risk estimates. RESULTS: A total of 765,255 people had one or more diagnoses of primary cancer (total 843,118 diagnoses) during the study period. The aggregated hazard ratio (HR) for risk of any second primary cancer after any first cancer was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.26), with heterogeneity among cancer types. The aggregated HR for risk of a second primary cancer of the same type as the first was 2.16 (95% CI 1.98-2.34). The aggregated HR for risk of a second cancer of a different type from the first was 1.13 (95% CI 1.12-1.15). Results were similar when we excluded second primary cancers occurring within 1, 2, 5 or 10 years after the first cancer. Overall, we observed 74 significant associations among 27 types of first cancer and 27 possible types of second primary cancer. INTERPRETATION: Excess risk of a second primary cancer was due mainly to a 2.2-fold risk of the second cancer being the same type as the first, whereas the risk of it being a different type was only 1.1-fold. However, heterogeneity among cancer types was substantial.
BACKGROUND:Patients surviving certain types of cancer are at increased risk of a second primary cancer. We tested the hypothesis that excess risk of a second primary cancer is due mainly to excess risk of it being the same type of cancer as the first, rather than to excess risk of it being a different type. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide study using data from three dabatases for the entire Danish population (n = 7,493,705) from 1980 through 2007. For each type of cancer, we performed a nested study matching each patient with incident cancer diagnosed in that period with up to five controls who did not have the examined cancer at the time of diagnosis. We used Cox regression models to calculate individual risk estimates and meta-analysis techniques to calculate aggregated risk estimates. RESULTS: A total of 765,255 people had one or more diagnoses of primary cancer (total 843,118 diagnoses) during the study period. The aggregated hazard ratio (HR) for risk of any second primary cancer after any first cancer was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.26), with heterogeneity among cancer types. The aggregated HR for risk of a second primary cancer of the same type as the first was 2.16 (95% CI 1.98-2.34). The aggregated HR for risk of a second cancer of a different type from the first was 1.13 (95% CI 1.12-1.15). Results were similar when we excluded second primary cancers occurring within 1, 2, 5 or 10 years after the first cancer. Overall, we observed 74 significant associations among 27 types of first cancer and 27 possible types of second primary cancer. INTERPRETATION: Excess risk of a second primary cancer was due mainly to a 2.2-fold risk of the second cancer being the same type as the first, whereas the risk of it being a different type was only 1.1-fold. However, heterogeneity among cancer types was substantial.
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Linn A Abraham; William E Barlow; Arun Krishnaraj; Regan C Holdridge; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Milena Maule; Ghislaine Scélo; Guido Pastore; Paul Brennan; Kari Hemminki; Elizabeth Tracey; Risto Sankila; Elisabete Weiderpass; Jorgen H Olsen; Mary L McBride; David H Brewster; Vera Pompe-Kirn; Erich V Kliewer; Kee Seng Chia; Jon M Tonita; Carmen Martos; Jon G Jonasson; Franco Merletti; Paolo Boffetta Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-05-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Laufey T Amundadottir; Sverrir Thorvaldsson; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Patrick Sulem; Kristleifur Kristjansson; Sigurdur Arnason; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Johannes Bjornsson; Augustine Kong; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Kari Stefansson Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2004-12-28 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: A Berrington de Gonzalez; R E Curtis; E Gilbert; C D Berg; S A Smith; M Stovall; E Ron Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: L P Forsythe; S M Gadalla; J G Hamilton; B M Heckman-Stoddard; E E Kent; G Y Lai; S W Lin; P Luhn; J M Faupel-Badger Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Dieter Hölzel; Renate Eckel; Ingo Bauerfeind; Bernd Baier; Thomas Beck; Michael Braun; Johannes Ettl; Ulrich Hamann; Nadia Harbeck; Marion Kiechle; Sven Mahner; Christian Schindlbeck; Johann de Waal; Jutta Engel Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Hao Liu; Kari Hemminki; Jan Sundquist; Bernd Holleczek; Alexander Katalinic; Katharina Emrich; Lina Jansen; Hermann Brenner Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Tianhui Chen; Mahdi Fallah; Hermann Brenner; Lina Jansen; Elias K Mai; Felipe A Castro; Alexander Katalinic; Katharina Emrich; Bernd Holleczek; Karla Geiss; Andrea Eberle; Kristina Sundquist; Kari Hemminki Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Unhee Lim; Jonathan M Kocarnik; William S Bush; Tara C Matise; Christian Caberto; Sungshim Lani Park; Christopher S Carlson; Ewa Deelman; David Duggan; Megan Fesinmeyer; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Laurence N Kolonel; Ulrike Peters; Daniel O Stram; Maarit Tiirikainen; Lynne R Wilkens; Chunyuan Wu; Charles Kooperberg; Loïc Le Marchand Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240