Latinos with lung-cancer live longer

A study by the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine shows that Hispanic lung-cancer patients seem to live longer than white or African American patients.

MIAMI, FL -- Research performed by Miller's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center says that, "as with several other types of cancer, certain yet-to-be-defined genetic and/or environmental factors put Hispanic patients at a survival advantage."

UM said in a communique that to carry out this study, published Monday online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society, a team of scientists led by Brian Lally and Ali Saeed studied the cases of 172,398 adult patients diagnosed with non-small-cell lung cancer (the most common) between 1988 and 2007.

"Compared with white patients, Hispanic patients had a 15 per cent lower risk of dying during the years of the study, whether they were born in the United States or not," UM said.

That fact is significant, according to Lally, "because it shows that our findings are indicative of the Hispanic population in general and not specific to specific groups of Hispanics."

"Our findings will motivate researchers and physicians to understand why Hispanics have more favorable outcomes and may shed light on potential environmental factors and/or genetic factors that can explain our observations," Saeed said.

Researchers also found that Hispanics are the most likely to develop the kind of lung cancer called bronchioalveolar carcinoma, which tends to be less dangerous than other types.

Saeed said that this could result from genetic predispositions or lower smoking rates.

He said the results of this study could be included in the "Hispanic paradox," the fact that Hispanics diagnosed with certain illnesses tend to show more favorable results than the average, regardless of socio-economic factors that could lead one to believe the opposite.

This paradox is seen, for example, in breast and prostate cancer, as well as in cardiovascular disease, but until now was never shown to be true in cases of lung cancer.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, estimates that lung cancer is the second-most diagnosed type of cancer and the biggest cause of cancer-related deaths nationwide.

According to its figures, 1.4 million people were diagnosed between 1998-2006 with lung cancer.

Hispanics were the ethnic group with the lowest incidence of lung cancer with 37.3 per cent, while blacks were highest at 76.1 per cent, followed by whites with 69.7 per cent, native Americans, 48.4 per cent, and Asian Americans, 38.4 per cent.

Expanded screenings appear to detect breast cancer earlier

Addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to annual mammography appears to provide benefit for women at increased risk of breast cancer

CHICAGO, Ill – The addition of a screening ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to annual mammography in women with an increased risk of breast cancer and dense breast tissue resulted in a higher rate of detection of incident breast cancers, according to a study in the April 4 issue of JAMA.

“Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening,” according to background information in the article.

Wendie A. Berg, M.D., Ph.D., formerly of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Philadelphia, and colleagues conducted a study to determine the supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. The study included 2,809 women (with increased cancer risk and dense breasts) at 21 sites who consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. Median age at enrollment was 55 years. Nearly 54 percent of women had a personal history of breast cancer. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data.

A total of 2,662 women underwent 7,473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events. Fifty-nine cancers (53 percent) were detected by mammography, including 33 (30 percent) that were detected by mammography only; 32 (29 percent) by ultrasound only; and 9 (8 percent) by MRI only after both mammography and ultrasound screens failed to detect cancer. Eleven cancers (10 percent) were not detected by any imaging screen. A total of 16 of 612 women (2.6 percent) in the MRI substudy were diagnosed with breast cancer.

Among 4,814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. The researchers found that supplemental ultrasound increased cancer detection with each annual screen beyond that of mammography, adding detection of 5.3 cancers per 1,000 women in the first year; 3.7 women per 1,000 per year in each of the second and third years; and averaging 4.3 per 1,000 for each of the 3 rounds of annual screening. The addition of MRI screening further increased cancer detection with a supplemental cancer detection yield of 14.7 per 1,000 women. The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 for mammography; 234 for supplemental ultrasound, and 68 for supplemental MRI after negative mammography plus ultrasound screening results. “Despite its higher sensitivity, the addition of screening MRI rather than ultrasound to mammography in broader populations of women at intermediate risk with dense breasts may not be appropriate, particularly when the current high false-positive rates, cost, and reduced tolerability of MRI are considered,” the authors conclude.