Robert L Dood1, Yang Zhao2, Shannon D Armbruster1, Robert L Coleman1, Shelley Tworoger3,4, Anil K Sood1, Keith A Baggerly2. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 2. Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 3. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Survivorship involves a multidisciplinary approach to surveillance and management of comorbidities and secondary cancers, overseen by oncologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Optimal timing and coordination of care, however, is unclear and often based on arbitrary 5-year cutoffs. Objective: To determine high- and low-risk periods for all tumor types that could define when survivorship care might best be overseen by oncologists and when to transition to primary care physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pan-cancer, longitudinal, observational study, excess mortality hazard, calculated as an annualized mortality risk above a baseline population, was plotted over time. The time this hazard took to stabilize defined a high-risk period. The percent morality elevation above age- and sex-matched controls in the latter low-risk period was reported as a mortality gap. The US population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database defined the cancer population, and the US Census life tables defined controls. Incident cases of patients with cancer were separated into tumor types based on International Classification of Diseases for Oncology definitions. Exposures: Population-level data on incident cancer cases was compared with the general US population. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall mortality and cause of death were reported on observed cancer cases. Results: A total of 2 317 185 patients (median age, 63 years; 49.8% female) with 66 primary tumor types were evaluated. High-risk surveillance period durations ranged from less than 1 year (breast, prostate, lip, ocular, and parathyroid cancers) up to 19 years (unspecified gastrointestinal cancers). The annualized mortality gap, representing the excess mortality in the stable period, ranged from a median 0.26% to 9.33% excess annual mortality (thyroid and hypopharyngeal cancer populations, respectively). Cluster analysis produced 6 risk cluster groups: group 1, with median survival of 16.2 (5th to 95th percentile range [PR], 10.7-40.2) years and median high-risk period of 2.5 (PR, 0-5.0) years; group 2, 8.3 (PR, 5.1-23.3) and 2.5 (PR, 4.0-8.0) years; group 3, 2.8 (PR, 1.4-3.7) and 7.0 (PR, 6.0-11.1) years; group 4, 1.6 (PR, 1.5-1.8) and 6.0 (PR, 5.1-11.4) years; group 5, 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) and 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) years; and group 6, 0.5 (PR, 0.4-0.8) and 12.0 (PR, 9.3-12.9) years, respectively. Subanalyses of selected tumor types in these groups revealed that stratifying on stage and histologic type can change the risk cluster and guidance for care. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that a standardized 5-year surveillance period is inadequate for some cancers while excessive for others. High-risk cancers require the most resources with the longest high-risk period, highest persistent baseline mortality risk, and longest period of primary cancer mortality, all arguing for longer follow-up with an oncologist in these cancers.
Importance: Survivorship involves a multidisciplinary approach to surveillance and management of comorbidities and secondary cancers, overseen by oncologists, surgeons, and primary care physicians. Optimal timing and coordination of care, however, is unclear and often based on arbitrary 5-year cutoffs. Objective: To determine high- and low-risk periods for all tumor types that could define when survivorship care might best be overseen by oncologists and when to transition to primary care physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this pan-cancer, longitudinal, observational study, excess mortality hazard, calculated as an annualized mortality risk above a baseline population, was plotted over time. The time this hazard took to stabilize defined a high-risk period. The percent morality elevation above age- and sex-matched controls in the latter low-risk period was reported as a mortality gap. The US population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database defined the cancer population, and the US Census life tables defined controls. Incident cases of patients with cancer were separated into tumor types based on International Classification of Diseases for Oncology definitions. Exposures: Population-level data on incident cancer cases was compared with the general US population. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall mortality and cause of death were reported on observed cancer cases. Results: A total of 2 317 185 patients (median age, 63 years; 49.8% female) with 66 primary tumor types were evaluated. High-risk surveillance period durations ranged from less than 1 year (breast, prostate, lip, ocular, and parathyroid cancers) up to 19 years (unspecifiedgastrointestinal cancers). The annualized mortality gap, representing the excess mortality in the stable period, ranged from a median 0.26% to 9.33% excess annual mortality (thyroid and hypopharyngeal cancer populations, respectively). Cluster analysis produced 6 risk cluster groups: group 1, with median survival of 16.2 (5th to 95th percentile range [PR], 10.7-40.2) years and median high-risk period of 2.5 (PR, 0-5.0) years; group 2, 8.3 (PR, 5.1-23.3) and 2.5 (PR, 4.0-8.0) years; group 3, 2.8 (PR, 1.4-3.7) and 7.0 (PR, 6.0-11.1) years; group 4, 1.6 (PR, 1.5-1.8) and 6.0 (PR, 5.1-11.4) years; group 5, 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) and 0.8 (PR, 0.5-1.2) years; and group 6, 0.5 (PR, 0.4-0.8) and 12.0 (PR, 9.3-12.9) years, respectively. Subanalyses of selected tumor types in these groups revealed that stratifying on stage and histologic type can change the risk cluster and guidance for care. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that a standardized 5-year surveillance period is inadequate for some cancers while excessive for others. High-risk cancers require the most resources with the longest high-risk period, highest persistent baseline mortality risk, and longest period of primary cancer mortality, all arguing for longer follow-up with an oncologist in these cancers.
Authors: Raoul C Reulen; David L Winter; Clare Frobisher; Emma R Lancashire; Charles A Stiller; Meriel E Jenney; Roderick Skinner; Michael C Stevens; Michael M Hawkins Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-07-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Melissa Matz; Michel P Coleman; Helena Carreira; Diego Salmerón; Maria Dolores Chirlaque; Claudia Allemani Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Carol E DeSantis; Chun Chieh Lin; Angela B Mariotto; Rebecca L Siegel; Kevin D Stein; Joan L Kramer; Rick Alteri; Anthony S Robbins; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2014-06-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Michael T Halpern; Meera Viswanathan; Tammeka S Evans; Sarah A Birken; Ethan Basch; Deborah K Mayer Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-09-09 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Catherine M Alfano; Deborah K Mayer; Smita Bhatia; Jane Maher; Jessica M Scott; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Janette K Merrill; Tara O Henderson Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Lauren C Peres; Sweta Sinha; Mary K Townsend; Brooke L Fridley; Beth Y Karlan; Susan K Lutgendorf; Eileen Shinn; Anil K Sood; Shelley S Tworoger Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Corinne R Leach; Catherine M Alfano; Jessica Potts; Lisa Gallicchio; K Robin Yabroff; Kevin C Oeffinger; Erin E Hahn; Lawrence N Shulman; Shawna V Hudson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Robert L Coleman; Nick M Spirtos; Danielle Enserro; Thomas J Herzog; Paul Sabbatini; Deborah K Armstrong; Jae-Weon Kim; Sang-Yoon Park; Byoung-Gie Kim; Joo-Hyun Nam; Keiichi Fujiwara; Joan L Walker; Ann C Casey; Angeles Alvarez Secord; Steve Rubin; John K Chan; Paul DiSilvestro; Susan A Davidson; David E Cohn; Krishnansu S Tewari; Karen Basen-Engquist; Helen Q Huang; Mark F Brady; Robert S Mannel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Deanna J Attai; Matthew S Katz; Elani Streja; Jui-Ting Hsiung; Maria V Marroquin; Beverly A Zavaleta; Larissa Nekhlyudov Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Luigino Dal Maso; Chiara Panato; Stefano Guzzinati; Diego Serraino; Silvia Francisci; Laura Botta; Riccardo Capocaccia; Andrea Tavilla; Anna Gigli; Emanuele Crocetti; Massimo Rugge; Giovanna Tagliabue; Rosa Angela Filiberti; Giuliano Carrozzi; Maria Michiara; Stefano Ferretti; Rosaria Cesaraccio; Rosario Tumino; Fabio Falcini; Fabrizio Stracci; Antonietta Torrisi; Guido Mazzoleni; Mario Fusco; Stefano Rosso; Francesco Tisano; Anna Clara Fanetti; Giovanna Maria Sini; Carlotta Buzzoni; Roberta De Angelis Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.452