Lou Gonsalves

PURPOSE: HIV-infected individuals with cancer have worse survival rates compared with their HIV-uninfected counterparts. One explanation may be differing cancer treatment; however, few studies have examined this. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used HIV and cancer registry data from Connecticut, Michigan, and Texas to study adults diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, or cervical, lung, anal, prostate, colorectal, or breast cancers from 1996 to 2010. We used logistic regression to examine associations between HIV status and cancer treatment, adjusted for cancer stage and demographic covariates. For a subset of local-stage cancers, we used logistic regression to assess the relationship between HIV status and standard treatment modality. We identified predictors of cancer treatment among individuals with both HIV and cancer. RESULTS: We evaluated 3,045 HIV-infected patients with cancer and 1,087,648 patients with cancer without HIV infection. A significantly higher proportion of HIV-infected individuals did not receive cancer treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.41 to 1.99), lung cancer (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.80 to 2.64), Hodgkin's lymphoma (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.37), prostate cancer (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.31 to 2.46), and colorectal cancer (aOR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.38 to 3.72). HIV infection was associated with a lack of standard treatment modality for local-stage DLBCL (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.72), non-small-cell lung cancer (aOR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46 to 4.03), and colon cancer (aOR, 4.77; 95% CI, 1.76 to 12.96). Among HIV-infected individuals, factors independently associated with lack of cancer treatment included low CD4 count, male sex with injection drug use as mode of HIV exposure, age 45 to 64 years, black race, and distant or unknown cancer stage. CONCLUSION: HIV-infected individuals are less likely to receive treatment for some cancers than uninfected people, which may affect survival rates.

PURPOSE: Melanoma is the most commonly fatal form of skin cancer, with nearly 50,000 annual deaths worldwide. We sought to assess long-term trends in the incidence and mortality of melanoma in a state with complete and consistent registration. METHODS: We used data from the Connecticut Tumor Registry, the original National Cancer Institute SEER site, to determine trends in invasive melanoma (1950-2007), in situ melanoma (1973-2007), tumor thickness (1993-2007), mortality (1950-2007), and mortality to incidence (1950-2007) among the 19,973 and 3,635 Connecticut residents diagnosed with invasive melanoma (1950-2007) and who died as a result of melanoma (1950-2007), respectively. Main outcome measures included trends in incidence and mortality by age, sex, and birth cohort. RESULTS: In the initial period (1950-1954), a diagnosis of invasive melanoma was rare, with 1.9 patient cases per 100,000 for men and 2.6 patient cases per 100,000 for women. Between 1950 and 2007, overall incidence rates rose more than 17-fold in men (1.9 to 33.5 per 100,000) and more than nine-fold in women (2.6 to 25.3 per 100,000). During these six decades, mortality rates more than tripled in men (1.6 to 4.9 per 100,000) and doubled in women (1.3 to 2.6 per 100,000). Mortality rates were generally stable or decreasing in men and women through age 54 years. CONCLUSION: Unremitting increases in incidence and mortality of melanoma call for a nationally coordinated effort to encourage and promote innovative prevention and early-detection efforts.

BACKGROUND: World Trade Center (WTC) rescue and recovery workers were exposed to a complex mix of pollutants and carcinogens. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate cancer incidence in responders during the first 7 years after 11 September 2001. METHODS: Cancers among 20,984 consented participants in the WTC Health Program were identified through linkage to state tumor registries in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to compare cancers diagnosed in responders to predicted numbers for the general population. Multivariate regression models were used to estimate associations with degree of exposure. RESULTS: A total of 575 cancers were diagnosed in 552 individuals. Increases above registry-based expectations were noted for all cancer sites combined (SIR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.25), thyroid cancer (SIR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.70, 3.27), prostate cancer (SIR = 1.21; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.44), combined hematopoietic and lymphoid cancers (SIR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.71), and soft tissue cancers (SIR = 2.26; 95% CI: 1.13, 4.05). When restricted to 302 cancers diagnosed ≥ 6 months after enrollment, the SIR for all cancers decreased to 1.06 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.18), but thyroid and prostate cancer diagnoses remained greater than expected. All cancers combined were increased in very highly exposed responders and among those exposed to significant amounts of dust, compared with responders who reported lower levels of exposure. CONCLUSION: Estimates should be interpreted with caution given the short follow-up and long latency period for most cancers, the intensive medical surveillance of this cohort, and the small numbers of cancers at specific sites. However, our findings highlight the need for continued follow-up and surveillance of WTC responders.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of family cancer history is essential for estimating an individual's cancer risk and making clinical recommendations regarding screening and referral to a specialty cancer genetics clinic. However, it is not clear if reported family cancer history is sufficiently accurate for this purpose. METHODS: In the population-based 2001 Connecticut Family Health Study, 1019 participants reported on 20 578 first-degree relatives (FDR) and second-degree relatives (SDR). Of those, 2605 relatives were sampled for confirmation of cancer reports on breast, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. Confirmation sources included state cancer registries, Medicare databases, the National Death Index, death certificates, and health-care facility records. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for reports on lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer and after stratification by sex, age, education, and degree of relatedness and used to estimate report accuracy. Pairwise t tests were used to evaluate differences between the two strata in each stratified analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Overall, sensitivity and positive predictive value were low to moderate and varied by cancer type: 60.2% and 40.0%, respectively, for lung cancer reports, 27.3% and 53.5% for colorectal cancer reports, 61.1% and 61.3% for breast cancer reports, and 32.0% and 53.4% for prostate cancer reports. Specificity and negative predictive value were more than 95% for all four cancer types. Cancer history reports on FDR were more accurate than reports on SDR, with reports on FDR having statistically significantly higher sensitivity for prostate cancer than reports on SDR (58.9% vs 21.5%, P = .002) and higher positive predictive value for lung (78.1% vs 31.7%, P < .001), colorectal (85.8% vs 43.5%, P = .004), and breast cancer (79.9% vs 53.6%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: General population reports on family history for the four major adult cancers were not highly accurate. Efforts to improve accuracy are needed in primary care and other health-care settings in which family history is collected to ensure appropriate risk assessment and clinical care recommendations.