Heterogeneity of Synchronous Lung Metastasis Calls for Risk Stratification and Prognostic Classification: Evidence from a Population-Based Database
by
, , ,
Shuncong Wang
1
,
Lei Chen
1
,
Yuanbo Feng
1,
Johan V. Swinnen
2,
Charles Jonscher
3,
Chantal Van Ongeval
4 and
Yicheng Ni
1,* 1
Theragnostic Laboratory, KU Leuven, Biomedical Group, Campus Gasthuisberg, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
2
Laboratory of Lipid Metabolism and Cancer, KU Leuven, Biomedical Group, Campus Gasthuisberg, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
3
Institute for Health Metrics & Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
4
Department of Radiology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(7), 1608; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071608
Submission received: 1 March 2022
/
Revised: 16 March 2022
/
Accepted: 20 March 2022
/
Published: 22 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary and Secondary Lung Cancers)
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Cancer patients with synchronous lung metastasis (sLM) are recognized as an entity with poor survival, and no consensus exists about which patients may benefit from active treatment. The current study demonstrates disparities in the prevalence and prognosis of sLM by primary cancer type and clinicodemographic factors, based on the SEER database. These heterogeneities here lay a foundation for and call for the development of risk assessment and prognosis classification tools that drive clinical management.
Abstract
The epidemiology and associated potential heterogeneity of synchronous lung metastasis (sLM) have not been reported at a population-based level. Cancer patients with valid information about sLM status in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database were enrolled. The prevalence of sLM, with a 95% confidential interval, and median survival of sLM, with interquartile range, were calculated and compared by Chi-square analyses and log-rank tests by primary cancer type and clinicopathological factors. Furthermore, the risk factors of sLM development were identified by multivariate logistic regression. Among 1,672,265 enrolled cases, 3.3% cases were identified with sLM, with a median survival of 7 months. Heterogeneity in prevalence and prognosis in sLM was observed among different primary cancers, with the highest prevalence in main bronchus cancer and best survival in testis cancer. Higher prevalence and poorer prognosis were observed in the older population, male population, African American, patients with lower socioeconomic status, and cases with advanced T stage, N stage, or more malignant pathological characteristics. Race, age, T stage, N stage, metastasis to other sites, insurance status and marital status were associated with sLM development (p < 0.001). The current study highlights the heterogeneity of the prevalence and prognosis in patients with sLM.
1. Introduction
Cancer represents a great threat to public health worldwide, with an estimated 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million cancer-related deaths globally in 2018 [1]. Approximately 90% of cancer-related deaths can be attributed to cancer metastasis, a major indication of treatment failure [2]. Early detection and active treatment of primary lesions may help reduce the risk of the development of metastatic disease [3,4]. The prognosis for metastasized cases is generally poor due to high tumor burden, inferior performance status, limited therapeutic options, and impairment of the involved organs’ function. The lungs are the third most common metastatic site for cancer, following the liver and bone [5]. Based on their organ mechanics, specifically vein drainage from the systemic circulation and their large area of micro-circulation, the lungs are exposed to the great risk of metastasis. Additionally, the organotropism is also attributable to the exosomes secreted by the primary cancer cells to prepare the premetastatic niche [6].
Great heterogeneity among metastatic lesions concerning tumor burden, treatment response, prognosis, and so on challenges the crude “yes-or-no” classification system for stratifying the metastasis status of cancer patients. For instance, a modified M stage by the organs being metastasized was proposed in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor [7]. In another perspective of metastasis, extra heterogeneity also exists in terms of metastatic origin; that is, patients with metastatic lesions from different primary cancers show divergent disease characteristics, treatment responses, prognoses, and so on [8]. Cancer metastasis was conventionally believed to be incurable; however, such heterogeneities raise hope for selecting patients who may potentially benefit from the evolving therapeutics from palliative or best supportive cares towards active interventions or even curative attempts. Individualized recommendation of treatment protocol is based on the precise prognosis prediction and thus the selection of patients who are expected to benefit more from the treatment. For sLM, currently available treatment includes stereotactic body radiation therapy, surgery, and ablation, followed by an in-depth understanding of cancer biology [9]. However, the heterogeneity of seeding primary cancer cells which also drive the prognosis disparity remains largely unknown and the few studies are elaborating on prognostic stratification of patients with sLM. There are previous publications on relevant topics that mainly focus on the molecular mechanism of sLM formation, retrospective studies on the treatment of sLM, and epidemiological studies based on small sample size, or from only colorectal cancer or breast cancer [10,11]. In addition to the heterogeneity of metastasis caused by biological factors, the formation of metastasis may be also influenced by socioeconomic status (SES) [12].
The current study was designed to test the hypothetical disparities with regards to the prevalence and prognosis within sLM patients with different biological features of the primary tumors and different socioeconomic statuses across different cancer types or even sub-types within certain cancers. To achieve sufficient representativeness and generalizability, we explored the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to achieve estimations of the prevalence and prognosis of sLM. Point estimates of the prevalence along with 95% confidence interval and median survival, along with interquartile range, were used to compare risk of developing sLM and prognosis.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Eligible Patients
The SEER database, founded by the National Cancer Institute in 1973, currently enrolls cancer cases from 18 registries, covering about 28% of all the U.S. population, and an increasing number of variables were collected by the SEER database over time [13]. The metastatic status of the lungs was first available in 2010; thus, only cases between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016 (most updated) with valid synchronous lung metastasis (sLM) status were eligible for this study. sLM is most likely diagnosed by radiology exams, which, however, failed to discriminate multi-focal primary lung cancer (all nodules are primary lung cancer) from metastatic lung cancer (nodules are primary and metastatic). Further pathological and bioinformatic results for these nodules are currently unavailable for clear classification in the SEER database. Thus, to ensure the quality of the current study, the cases of primary lung cancer anatomically in the lungs were excluded. Additionally, bronchus cancer was enrolled to increase the generalizability of this study, since bronchus can be easily discriminated from primary lung cancer in lung tissue by radiology exams. Cases with a prior cancer history or with T stages such as T0, Tis, or Ta (for bladder cancer) were excluded. Only sLM cases with the diagnosis of their primary cancers by either histological or cytological exams were enrolled, and leukemia and lymphoma cases were excluded due to their diffuse nature.
2.2. Tumor Classification and Statistical Analyses
The primary cancer types were determined by the information of both organ site and histological diagnosis, except for sarcoma and melanoma, which are defined solely by histology [14,15]. Embryonal tumors include medulloblastoma, Wilms tumor, and neuroblastoma. The subgrouping of cancer types was determined for any particular cancers based on detailed clinical information. Age at diagnosis was categorized into five stratifications (0–18, 19–40, 41–60, 61–80 and 81+ years). The race here includes four classes: Caucasian, African American, other races, and unknown, based on the SEER database [16]. The patients are categorized by the AJCC 7th TNM stages [17].
The prevalence of sLM along with its 95% confidence interval and the ratio of sLM over all metastases were calculated, following the summary of the number of all cases, metastatic cases, and sLM cases by primary cancer (Table 1 and Table 2) [18]. The prognosis for sLM cases was depicted by median survival and interquartile range, estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and the survival difference was assessed by log-rank tests. Comparison by biological variables and socioeconomic factors was also performed. Here, due to the unavailability of individual-level income, and education information, county-level surrogates were adopted by linking the residing address to the 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes from the United States Department of Agriculture [19]. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for primary cancer site was performed to assess the relationship between clinical demographic factors and the occurrence of sLM patients. Statistical analyses were performed on R 3.6.0 (https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 8 January 2022)), with the survminer and survival package [20,21].
3. Results
3.1. Prevalence of Lung Metastasis
1,672,265 cases were eligible for the current study, with 194,012 total metastatic cases and 55,193 sLM cases, which accounts for 3.30% (95% CI: 3.27–3.33%) of all cases and 28.45% of metastatic cases, respectively. The prevalence of sLM varies greatly across different cancer types (Table 1). Tumor types with the highest sLM prevalence were tumors originating from the main bronchus, 17.03% (95% CI: 16.33–17.74%), bone, 11.99% (95% CI: 11.10–12.88%), pancreas, 10.83% (95% CI: 10.57–11.10%), oesophagus, 9.85% (95% CI: 9.43–10.26%), and kidney, 8.37% (95% CI: 8.16–8.57%) (Table 1, Figure 1). Significant prevalence disparities were observed among different age groups, sexes, races, patients with different T or N stages, and patients with different socioeconomic statuses (insurance, marriage, income, residence type, and education) (Table 2, Supplementary Tables S1–S5). Of note, a counterintuitively higher sLM prevalence was observed in the T1 stage compared with T2 cases in oesophagus cancer (7.87% vs. 2.85%, p < 0.001), gastric cancer (4.03% vs. 2.14%, p < 0.001), extrahepatic biliary tract cancer (3.81% vs. 1.59%, p < 0.001), and CRC (3.01% vs. 0.79%, p < 0.001) ( Supplementary Table S4). Similarly, a significantly higher prevalence in N1 cases compared with N2 cases was observed in oesophagus cancer (12.59% vs. 6.70%, p < 0.001), gastric cancer (8.38% vs. 2.51%, p < 0.001), and CRC (6.73% vs. 6.42%, p < 0.001).
sLM is the major type of metastasis for metastatic cases originating from bone (70.57%), thyroid (63.28%), testis (63.04%), soft tissue (61.66%), kidney (60.88%), and head and neck (51.12%) (Table 1). In terms of the distribution of primary cancers, 17.48% of sLM cases originated from CRC, with 10.82% from the breast, 10.55% from the kidney, and 10.29% from the pancreas (Table 1). Demographic factors (race, age), clinical factors (T stage, N stage, bone metastasis, brain metastasis, liver metastasis), and socioeconomic factors (marital status, insurance status) are associated with the development of sLM, as revealed by multivariate logistic regression adjusted by primary cancer site (Table 3).
3.2. Survival Analysis
The median survival and corresponding interquartile range for sLM cases by primary cancers are presented in Table 1. The median survival for general sLM cases is 7 months, with the best survival in testis cancer and embryonal tumors (median survival unreached), prostate cancer (22 months), breast cancer (20 months), bone tumor (19 months), ovary cancer (16 months), thyroid cancer (11 months), and CRC (10 months) (Table 1). Similarly, survival disparities can be observed in patients with sLM among different age groups, sexes, races, different T or N stages, and patients with different socioeconomic statuses (insurance, marriage, income, residence type, education, and unemployment) (Table 2, Supplementary Tables S1–S5). Better prognosis in patients with sLM was observed in females, other race, younger patients, patients who resided in richer or better-educated counties, metro or urban cities, insured patients, and married patients (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Consistent with the counterintuitive prevalence pattern in gastrointestinal cancers, a better prognosis was observed in the slightly advanced cases of these cases with sLM.
4. Discussion
The current study has reported for the first time the prevalence and prognosis of synchronous lung metastasis (sLM) by different primary cancer types, based on a population-based database with great generalizability and representativeness. Furthermore, subgroup analyses confirm hypothetical disparities in prevalence and prognosis inside subgroups by both biological factors and socioeconomic factors. These disparities here may highlight the heterogeneity of sLM, which calls for the development of clinical tools for risk stratification and prognosis classification.
The diverse prevalence and prognosis observed here may be biologically attributed to two aspects: microenvironment in lung tissue and primary cancer cell. The “soil,” or microenvironment, of lungs influences the formation of sLM, with smoking being verified as a risk factor by clinical retrospective studies and bench studies [22]. Similarly, a retrospective study of 567 pathological stage I, II, or III colorectal cancers showed that current smokers harbor a higher risk of sLM (hazard ratio = 2.72, 95% CI 1.18–6.25; p = 0.02) [23]. Smoking can promote the formation of sLM in colorectal cancer animal models [24]. In the B16-MO5 melanoma animal model, smoking exposure impairs the NK cell-dependent anti-tumor immunity, which can be resecured by activation through bone marrow-derived dendritic cells [25]. A case-control study with 87 female breast cancer patients with sLM and 174 controlled cases without sLM showed a relationship between active smoking and the development of sLM, which was further validated by an animal study [26,27]. Smoke-associated chronic inflammation in the lung microenvironment may promote growth of metastatic cancer cells from breast cancer in mice experiments and patients [28,29]. Interestingly, e-cigarettes also promote breast cancer cell growth and metastatic lung colonization, mediated by cross-talk with tumor-associated macrophages via CCL5 and VCAM-1 pathways in an animal study [30]. However, due to a lack of disease information about the intrinsic lung disease in the SEER database, we failed to verify these findings. Additionally, the development of clinical management of lung metastasis, including surgical techniques and post-treatment care, may help improve the prognosis and quality of life [31,32].
Besides the soil, the pattern of metastasis epitomizes the role of heterogeneous cancer biology. In the subgroup analyses, heterogeneities in tumor biology (tumor marker level, histology characteristics) are translated into disparities in prevalence and prognosis, indicating that involvement of a detailed molecular profile may boost more precise estimation, such as what we achieved in the prognostic classification of brain metastasis. Elevated tumor biomarker level, including AFP, CEA, PSA, and CA125, is usually associated with either higher tumor burden or increased malignancy and thus the intuitively higher prevalence of sLM and poorer survival. HER+ breast cancer is associated with a higher prevalence of sLM and liver metastasis in clinic, which is mediated by its switching effect of TGFβ from inhibiting cell proliferation to promoting cell migration [8,33]. Nottingham grade was believed to be predictive in cancer-specific survival and disease-free survival in breast cancer, and we also observed its predictive role in breast cancer sLM cases, with lower prevalence and better survival in patients with a lower Nottingham grade [34]. RLIP is associated with breast cancer growth and metastasis to the lungs, based on results from an animal study [35]. In line with a bench study, AFP is associated with an increased risk of developing sLM by up-regulation of metastasis-related proteins [36]. The disparity in the prevalence of sLM by fibrosis status can be partly explained by their baseline characteristics: compared with cirrhotic HCC cases, patients without cirrhosis generally present worse pathological grade, larger tumor, and more lymph node involvement [37]. Interestingly, sidedness of CRC also impacts the formation and prognosis of sLM, with lower prevalence but poorer prognosis in right CRC, which may be explained by a more extensive metastasis pattern, poorer differentiation, and a higher percentage of KRAS and/or BRAF mutation in right CRC [38]. Unlike the divergent role of RAS in colorectal cancer liver metastasis, RAS mutation is associated with a higher prevalence of metastasis in lung, brain, and bone, with hazard ratios of 1.5, 3.7, and 1.6, respectively [39,40]. Interestingly, we discovered a counterintuitively higher prevalence of sLM in the patients with T1 stage than in the cases with more advanced stages in esophagus cancer, gastric cancer, and CRC. This disproportional relationship also exists in the prevalence of liver metastasis and brain metastasis in most of the cancer types mentioned above [8,41]. A bioinformatics study in CRC identified a set of genetic mutations associated with the development of metastasis years before a clinically detectable primary lesion [42]. The epidemiology data here may represent clues for bench researchers, who may decode the molecular interplay underlying the clinical manifestations.
SES not only affects primary cancer diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis but modifies the risk of developing metastasis and alters its prognosis [43]. The higher sLM prevalence and poorer sLM prognosis in patients with lower SES status can be explained by the lower awareness of early diagnosis, delayed treatment, and poorer access to healthcare resources [44]. For example, married patients are associated with better survival due to a higher rate of surgery or radiotherapy in all cancer patients as well as sLM patients [45]. Furthermore, the first impression of lower SES in unmarried patients may lead to less intensive treatment from clinicians [46]. Lower income was reported to halt early diagnosis and sufficient and timely treatment, which can be restored by insurance [47,48,49,50,51]. In terms of racial disparity, a higher risk of sLM in African Americans and other races can be attributed to the lower insurance coverage in the population [52], advanced stage of primary cancer at diagnosis [53], less participation in cancer screening [54], and so on. These factors interplay with each other and contribute to the disparities here, and there is a pressing need to increase awareness of this disparity.
Besides highlighting the disparities of sLM, the current study also provides descriptive data about sLM epidemiology. The prevalence data here help estimate the disease burden for pharmaceutical companies, healthcare insurance systems, allocation of lung-directed treatment resources, and so on. As most of the current treatments are designed to target the characteristics of tumor of origin, rather than the metastatic niche, non-metastatic patients are the most frequently enrolled cases and the prevalence data here may help estimate how many patients are needed during initial enrollment, and more importantly, this estimation can be more precise after considering the subgroup disparities. Also, the survival data here may help estimate the sample size for clinical trials for a given expected survival difference.
Despite novel findings in the current study, it harbors the following limitations. Firstly, the SEER database only provides qualitative information about the sLM status, which disenables quantitative analyses by tumor number and tumor size. Secondly, the diagnostic method for the sLM remained unreported, and the heterogeneity in the detecting sensitivity may have biased the prevalence data here. Thirdly, the co-existing lung disease status and the detailed genetic information of primary cancer (such as RAS mutation status in CRC, BRAF mutation in melanoma, and so on) remained unknown, which disenabled more precise epidemiological data on sLM.
5. Conclusions
The current study reports the prevalence and prognosis of sLM in a pan-cancer manner based on a population-based database with great representativeness. These data may (1) demonstrate the heterogeneity of sLM by providing epidemiological evidence and (2) provide descriptive epidemiology data for estimating sLM burden for the pharmaceutic industry and policymakers, decision-making concerning lung surveillance or screening, and designing clinical trials by providing data to balance the prevalence and survival disparities.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers14071608/s1, Supplementary Table S1. Number of cases with synchronous lung metastasis and all cases, prevalence of synchronous lung metastasis and median survival with interquartile range by cancer type and race or sex; Supplementary Table S2. Number of cases with synchronous lung metastasis and all cases, prevalence of synchronous lung metastasis and median survival with interquartile range by cancer type and age or county-level income; Supplementary Table S3. Number of cases with synchronous lung metastasis and all cases, prevalence of synchronous lung metastasis and median survival with interquartile range by cancer type and county-level education or county-level residence type; Supplementary Table S4. Number of cases with synchronous lung metastasis and all cases, prevalence of synchronous lung metastasis and median survival with interquartile range by cancer type and T stage or N stage; Supplementary Table S5. Number of cases with synchronous lung metastasis and all cases, prevalence of synchronous lung metastasis and median survival with interquartile range by cancer type and insurance status or marital status.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Y.N.; Methodology: S.W., Y.N.; Software: S.W.; Validation: S.W.; Formal analysis: S.W., L.C., Y.F.; Investigation: S.W., L.C., Y.F.; Resources: S.W.; Data curation: S.W.; Writing—original draft preparation: S.W., L.C., Y.F.; Writing—review and editing: J.V.S., C.J., C.V.O.; Visualization: S.W., L.C.; Supervision: Y.N.; Project administration: Y.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the fact that the data are fully de-identified and no intervention on patients was performed.
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived due to the fact that the data are fully de-identified and no intervention on patients was performed.
Data Availability Statement
All data here are publicly available in the SEER database (https://seer.cancer.gov/ (accessed on 12 December 2021)).
Acknowledgments
We thank all staff of the SEER database for their contribution in data collection, maintenance, distribution and so on. We acknowledge Oncocidia Limited, London, UK and Jean-Pierre Peters with his firm P&R Medical, Hasselt, Belgium for their partial financial supports to our ongoing research.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chaffer, C.L.; Weinberg, R.A. A perspective on cancer cell metastasis. Science 2011, 331, 1559–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Feng, Y.; Zhang, J.; Swinnen, J.; Li, Y.; Ni, Y. A Review on Curability of Cancers: More Efforts for Novel Therapeutic Options Are Needed. Cancers 2019, 11, 1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Liu, H.; Wu, Q.; Wang, S.; Dai, C. Predictors of Distant Metastasis and Survival in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the External Auditory Canal. Otol. Neurotol. 2019, 40, e1006–e1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Riihimäki, M.; Thomsen, H.; Sundquist, K.; Sundquist, J.; Hemminki, K. Clinical landscape of cancer metastases. Cancer Med. 2018, 7, 5534–5542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodrigues, G.; Hoshino, A.; Kenific, C.M.; Matei, I.R.; Steiner, L.; Freitas, D.; Kim, H.S.; Oxley, P.R.; Scandariato, I.; Casanova-Salas, I.; et al. Tumour exosomal CEMIP protein promotes cancer cell colonization in brain metastasis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2019, 21, 1403–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Song, J.; Liu, P.; Mazid, M.A.; Lu, L.; Shang, Y.; Wei, Y.; Gong, P.; Ma, L. A modified M-stage classification based on the metastatic patterns of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: A population-based study. BMC Endocr. Disord. 2018, 18, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Feng, Y.; Swinnen, J.; Oyen, R.; Li, Y.; Ni, Y. Incidence and prognosis of liver metastasis at diagnosis: A pan-cancer population-based study. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2020, 10, 1477–1517. [Google Scholar]
- Palma, D.A.; Salama, J.K.; Lo, S.S.; Senan, S.; Treasure, T.; Govindan, R.; Weichselbaum, R. The oligometastatic state—Separating truth from wishful thinking. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 11, 549–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, W.; Zheng, S.; Liu, P.; Zou, Y.; Xie, X.; Yu, P.; Tang, H.; Xie, X. Risk factors and survival outcomes in patients with breast cancer and lung metastasis: A population-based study. Cancer Med. 2018, 7, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ge, Y.; Lei, S.; Cai, B.; Gao, X.; Wang, G.; Wang, L.; Wang, Z. Incidence and prognosis of pulmonary metastasis in colorectal cancer: A population-based study. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2020, 35, 223–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ward, E.; Jemal, A.; Cokkinides, V.; Singh, G.K.; Cardinez, C.; Ghafoor, A.; Thun, M. Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2004, 54, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- SEER Database. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/ (accessed on 1 February 2022).
- SEER. ICD-O-3 Coding Materials. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/icd-o-3/ (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- SEER. Appendix C: Site Specific Coding Modules. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/archive/manuals/2021/appendixc.html?&url=/manuals/2021/appendixc.html (accessed on 28 February 2022).
- SEER Database. Race Recode Changes. Available online: https://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/variables/seer/race_ethnicity/ (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- AJCC Staging System. Available online: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancer/ajcc (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- A Confidence Interval for A Population Proportion. Available online: https://openstax.org/books/introductory-business-statistics/pages/8-3-a-confidence-interval-for-a-population-proportion (accessed on 22 June 2021).
- USDA. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/ (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Kassambara, A.; Kosinski, M.; Biecek, P.; Fabian, S.; Survminer: Drawing Survival Curves Using ‘ggplot2’. R Package Version 0.4.4. 2019. Available online: https://rpkgs.datanovia.com/survminer/ (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Therneau, T.; A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R Package Version 3.2-7. 2020. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/survival/vignettes/survival.pdf (accessed on 19 November 2021).
- Abrams, J.A.; Lee, P.C.; Port, J.L.; Altorki, N.K.; Neugut, A.I. Cigarette smoking and risk of lung metastasis from esophageal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2008, 17, 2707–2713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Yahagi, M.; Tsuruta, M.; Hasegawa, H.; Okabayashi, K.; Toyoda, N.; Iwama, N.; Morita, S.; Kitagawa, Y. Smoking is a risk factor for pulmonary metastasis in colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2017, 19, O322–O328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makino, A.; Tsuruta, M.; Okabayashi, K.; Ishida, T.; Shigeta, K.; Seishima, R.; Ikebata, A.; Koishikawa, K.; Hasegawa, H.; Shimoda, M.; et al. The Impact of Smoking on Pulmonary Metastasis in Colorectal Cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2020, 13, 9623–9629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, L.M.; Zavitz, C.C.; Chen, B.; Kianpour, S.; Wan, Y.; Stämpfli, M.R. Cigarette smoke impairs NK cell-dependent tumor immune surveillance. J. Immunol. 2007, 178, 936–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murin, S.; Inciardi, J. Cigarette smoking and the risk of pulmonary metastasis from breast cancer. Chest 2001, 119, 1635–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Murin, S.; Pinkerton, K.E.; Hubbard, N.E.; Erickson, K. The effect of cigarette smoke exposure on pulmonary metastatic disease in a murine model of metastatic breast cancer. Chest 2004, 125, 1467–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, M.; Xu, X.; Bi, Y.; Xu, J.; Qin, C.; Han, M. Systemic inflammation promotes lung metastasis via E-selectin upregulation in mouse breast cancer model. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2014, 15, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stathopoulos, G.T.; Sherrill, T.P.; Han, W.; Sadikot, R.T.; Yull, F.E.; Blackwell, T.S.; Fingleton, B. Host nuclear factor-kappaB activation potentiates lung cancer metastasis. Mol. Cancer Res. 2008, 6, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pham, K.; Huynh, D.; Le, L.; Delitto, D.; Yang, L.; Huang, J.; Kang, Y.; Steinberg, M.B.; Li, J.; Zhang, L.; et al. E-cigarette promotes breast carcinoma progression and lung metastasis: Macrophage-tumor cells crosstalk and the role of CCL5 and VCAM-1. Cancer Lett. 2020, 491, 132–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cocuzza, S.; Di Luca, M.; Maniaci, A.; Russo, M.; Di Mauro, P.; Migliore, M.; Serra, A.; Spinato, G. Precision treatment of post pneumonectomy unilateral laryngeal paralysis due to cancer. Future Oncol. 2020, 16, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meccariello, G.; Maniaci, A.; Bianchi, G.; Cammaroto, G.; Iannella, G.; Catalano, A.; Sgarzani, R.; De Vito, A.; Capaccio, P.; Pelucchi, S.; et al. Neck dissection and trans oral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Auris Nasus Larynx 2022, 49, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, F.; Shi, Q.; Li, Y.; Xu, L.; Xu, C.; Chen, F.; Wang, H.; Liao, H.; Chang, Z.; Liu, F.; et al. HER2/EGFR-AKT Signaling Switches TGFβ from Inhibiting Cell Proliferation to Promoting Cell Migration in Breast Cancer. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, 6073–6085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rakha, E.A.; El-Sayed, M.E.; Lee, A.H.; Elston, C.W.; Grainge, M.J.; Hodi, Z.; Blamey, R.W.; Ellis, I.O. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 3153–3158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singhal, J.; Chikara, S.; Horne, D.; Salgia, R.; Awasthi, S.; Singhal, S.S. RLIP inhibition suppresses breast-to-lung metastasis. Cancer Lett. 2019, 447, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, Y.; Zhu, M.; Li, W.; Lin, B.; Dong, X.; Chen, Y.; Xie, X.; Guo, J.; Li, M. Alpha fetoprotein plays a critical role in promoting metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma cells. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2016, 20, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Bai, D.S.; Qian, J.J.; Zhang, C.; Jin, S.J.; Wang, X.; Jiang, G.Q. Differences in tumour characteristics of Hepatocellular Carcinoma between patients with and without Cirrhosis: A population-based study. J. Cancer 2020, 11, 5812–5821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Engstrand, J.; Nilsson, H.; Strömberg, C.; Jonas, E.; Freedman, J. Colorectal cancer liver metastases—A population-based study on incidence, management and survival. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, A.A.; Rego, J.F.; Morris, V.; Overman, M.J.; Eng, C.; Garrett, C.R.; Boutin, A.T.; Ferrarotto, R.; Lee, M.; Jiang, Z.Q.; et al. Association between KRAS mutation and lung metastasis in advanced colorectal cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2015, 112, 424–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, M.-J.; Lee, H.S.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, Y.J.; Kwon, J.H.; Lee, J.-O.; Bang, S.-M.; Park, K.U.; Kim, D.-W.; Kang, S.-B.; et al. Different metastatic pattern according to the KRAS mutational status and site-specific discordance of KRAS status in patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cagney, D.N.; Martin, A.M.; Catalano, P.J.; Redig, A.J.; Lin, N.U.; Lee, E.Q.; Wen, P.Y.; Dunn, I.F.; Bi, W.L.; Weiss, S.E.; et al. Incidence and prognosis of patients with brain metastases at diagnosis of systemic malignancy: A population-based study. Neuro Oncol. 2017, 19, 1511–1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, Z.; Ding, J.; Ma, Z.; Sun, R.; Seoane, J.A.; Scott Shaffer, J.; Suarez, C.J.; Berghoff, A.S.; Cremolini, C.; Falcone, A.; et al. Quantitative evidence for early metastatic seeding in colorectal cancer. Nat. Genet. 2019, 51, 1113–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alcaraz, K.I.; Wiedt, T.L.; Daniels, E.C.; Yabroff, K.R.; Guerra, C.E.; Wender, R.C. Understanding and addressing social determinants to advance cancer health equity in the United States: A blueprint for practice, research, and policy. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barton, M.K. Inferior cancer outcomes more common for uninsured and Medicaid patients. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015, 65, 165–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aizer, A.A.; Chen, M.-H.; McCarthy, E.P.; Mendu, M.L.; Koo, S.; Wilhite, T.J.; Graham, P.L.; Choueiri, T.K.; Hoffman, K.E.; Martin, N.E.; et al. Marital status and survival in patients with cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 3869–3876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DelFattore, J. Death by Stereotype? Cancer Treatment in Unmarried Patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 982–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vallance, A.E.; van der Meulen, J.; Kuryba, A.; Braun, M.; Jayne, D.G.; Hill, J.; Cameron, I.C.; Walker, K. Socioeconomic differences in selection for liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer and the impact on survival. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 44, 1588–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahase, S.S.; D’Angelo, D.; Kang, J.; Hu, J.C.; Barbieri, C.E.; Nagar, H. Trends in the Use of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Treatment of Prostate Cancer in the United States. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e1920471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jain, V.; Venigalla, S.; Reddy, V.K.; Lukens, J.N.; Mitchell, T.C.; Shabason, J.E. Association of Insurance Status With Presentation, Treatment, and Survival in Melanoma in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. J. Immunother. 2020, 43, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wharam, J.F.; Zhang, F.; Lu, C.Y.; Wagner, A.K.; Nekhlyudov, L.; Earle, C.C.; Soumerai, S.B.; Ross-Degnan, D. Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment After High-Deductible Insurance Enrollment. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36, 1121–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Loehrer, A.P.; Song, Z.; Haynes, A.B.; Chang, D.C.; Hutter, M.M.; Mullen, J.T. Impact of Health Insurance Expansion on the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 4110–4115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, D.-C.; Liang, H.; Shi, L. The convergence of racial and income disparities in health insurance coverage in the United States. Int. J. Equity Health 2021, 20, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miller, K.D.; Goding Sauer, A.; Ortiz, A.P.; Fedewa, S.A.; Pinheiro, P.S.; Tortolero-Luna, G.; Martinez-Tyson, D.; Jemal, A.; Siegel, R.L. Cancer Statistics for Hispanics/Latinos, 2018. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 425–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goel, M.S.; Wee, C.C.; McCarthy, E.P.; Davis, R.B.; Ngo-Metzger, Q.; Phillips, R.S. Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer screening: The importance of foreign birth as a barrier to care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2003, 18, 1028–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
Prevalence and prognosis of sLM cases by primary cancer. (A) Prevalence of synchronous sLM by cancer type in all cancer patients (including metastatic and non-metastatic cancer patients); (B) Ratio of synchronous sLM by cancer type in patients with metastatic lesions; (C) Distribution of primary cancer in patients with sLM; (D) Median survival of cancer patients with sLM. Abbreviations: STS: soft tissue sarcoma; GI: gastrointestinal cancer; GU: genitourinary cancer.
Figure 1.
Prevalence and prognosis of sLM cases by primary cancer. (A) Prevalence of synchronous sLM by cancer type in all cancer patients (including metastatic and non-metastatic cancer patients); (B) Ratio of synchronous sLM by cancer type in patients with metastatic lesions; (C) Distribution of primary cancer in patients with sLM; (D) Median survival of cancer patients with sLM. Abbreviations: STS: soft tissue sarcoma; GI: gastrointestinal cancer; GU: genitourinary cancer.
Figure 2.
Disparities in prevalence and prognosis for sLM by age (A,B), race (C,D), sex (E,F), T stage (G,H), and N stage (I,J). Statistical tests were performed by Chi-square analyses and log-rank tests. Abbreviation: AA: African American.
Figure 2.
Disparities in prevalence and prognosis for sLM by age (A,B), race (C,D), sex (E,F), T stage (G,H), and N stage (I,J). Statistical tests were performed by Chi-square analyses and log-rank tests. Abbreviation: AA: African American.
Figure 3.
Disparities in prevalence and prognosis for sLM by insurance (A,B), marital status (C,D), residence type (E,F), county-level income (G,H), and county-level education (I,J). Statistical tests were performed by Chi-square analyses and log-rank tests.
Figure 3.
Disparities in prevalence and prognosis for sLM by insurance (A,B), marital status (C,D), residence type (E,F), county-level income (G,H), and county-level education (I,J). Statistical tests were performed by Chi-square analyses and log-rank tests.
Table 1.
The number of all cases, metastatic cases, and cases with synchronous lung metastasis and their corresponding prevalence, distribution, and median survival with interquartile range by cancer type.
Table 1.
The number of all cases, metastatic cases, and cases with synchronous lung metastasis and their corresponding prevalence, distribution, and median survival with interquartile range by cancer type.
| Categories | No. of Cases | Prevalence a | Ratio | Distribution c | Survival d | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Metastasis | sLM | sLM | sLM/Metastasis b | |||
| All | 1,672,265 | 194,012 | 55,193 | 3.30% (3.27–3.33%) | 28.45% | 100.00% | 7 (2–22) |
| Brain | 27,485 | 209 | 17 | 0.06% (0.03–0.09%) | 8.13% | 0.03% | 9 (3–23) |
| Head and neck | 74,897 | 3079 | 1574 | 2.10% (2.00–2.20%) | 51.12% | 2.85% | 8 (3–20) |
| Thyroid | 78,003 | 1574 | 996 | 1.28% (1.20–1.36%) | 63.28% | 1.80% | 11 (2–79) |
| Pathology | |||||||
| Solitary | 45,450 | 782 | 516 | 1.14% (1.04–1.23%) *** | 65.98% | 0.93% | 9 (2–70) *** |
| Multifocal | 30,707 | 514 | 309 | 1.01% (0.89–1.12%) | 60.12% | 0.56% | 45 (6–NA) |
| Unknown | 1846 | 278 | 171 | 9.26% (7.94–10.59%) | 61.51% | 0.31% | 4 (1–13) |
| All breast | 358,649 | 18,819 | 5972 | 1.67% (1.62–1.71%) | 31.73% | 10.82% | 20 (5–47) |
| Molecular subtype | |||||||
| Her2−/HR+ | 15,831 | 1564 | 575 | 3.63% (3.34–3.92%) *** | 36.76% | 1.04% | 20 (4–52) *** |
| Her2+/HR+ | 37,204 | 2905 | 907 | 2.44% (2.28–2.59%) | 31.22% | 1.64% | 32 (10–NA) |
| Her2+/HR− | 245,301 | 9878 | 2794 | 1.14% (1.10–1.18%) | 28.29% | 5.06% | 27 (8–52) |
| Triple negative | 37,359 | 2303 | 944 | 2.53% (2.37–2.69%) | 40.99% | 1.71% | 10 (3–19) |
| Unknown | 22,954 | 2169 | 752 | 3.28% (3.05–3.51%) | 34.67% | 1.36% | 8 (1–30) |
| BR grade | |||||||
| Low | 82,105 | 1245 | 302 | 0.37% (0.33–0.41%) *** | 24.26% | 0.55% | 34 (10–65) *** |
| Medium | 140,840 | 5221 | 1474 | 1.05% (0.99–1.10%) | 28.23% | 2.67% | 28 (10–61) |
| High | 95,779 | 5413 | 1949 | 2.03% (1.95–2.12%) | 36.01% | 3.53% | 18 (5–43) |
| Unknown | 39,925 | 6940 | 2247 | 5.63% (5.40–5.85%) | 32.38% | 4.07% | 15 (2–40) |
| Main bronchus | 10,878 | 6848 | 1853 | 17.03% (16.33–17.74%) | 27.06% | 3.36% | 3 (1–10) |
| Oesophagus | 20,068 | 6576 | 1976 | 9.85% (9.43–10.26%) | 30.05% | 3.58% | 4 (1–10) |
| Stomach | 31,825 | 11,559 | 1756 | 5.52% (5.27–5.77%) | 15.19% | 3.18% | 3 (1–9) |
| Liver e | 26,267 | 5793 | 2245 | 8.55% (8.21–8.88%) | 38.75% | 4.07% | 2 (1–6) |
| AFP level | |||||||
| Elevated | 11,959 | 2598 | 1034 | 8.65% (8.14–9.15%) *** | 39.80% | 1.87% | 2 (1–5) *** |
| Normal | 6713 | 1191 | 445 | 6.63% (6.03–7.22%) | 37.36% | 0.81% | 3 (1–8) |
| Borderline | 59 | 10 | 2 | NA | 20.00% | 0.00% | 8 (8–8) |
| Unknown | 7536 | 1324 | 494 | 6.56% (6.00–7.11%) | 37.31% | 0.90% | 2 (1–8) |
| Fibrosis grade | |||||||
| None to moderate | 1923 | 277 | 101 | 5.25% (4.26–6.25%) *** | 36.46% | 0.18% | 4 (2–9) *** |
| Severe or cirrhotic | 4178 | 524 | 186 | 4.45% (3.83–5.08%) | 35.50% | 0.34% | 2 (0–6) |
| Unknown | 20,166 | 4992 | 1958 | 9.71% (9.30–10.12%) | 39.22% | 3.55% | 2 (1–6) |
| Extrahepatic biliary tract | 14,238 | 4727 | 876 | 6.15% (5.76–6.55%) | 18.53% | 1.59% | 3 (1–8) |
| Pancreas | 52,442 | 26,544 | 5682 | 10.83% (10.57–11.10%) | 21.41% | 10.29% | 3 (1–7) |
| Tumor site | |||||||
| Head of pancreas | 25,958 | 9343 | 1766 | 6.80% (6.50–7.11%) *** | 18.90% | 3.20% | 3 (1–9) *** |
| Body of pancreas | 7272 | 4215 | 919 | 12.64% (11.87–13.40%) | 21.80% | 1.67% | 3 (1–9) |
| Tail of pancreas | 8186 | 5663 | 1240 | 15.15% (14.37–15.92%) | 21.90% | 2.25% | 2 (1–6) |
| Unspecified pancreas | 11,026 | 7323 | 1757 | 15.94% (15.25–16.62%) | 23.99% | 3.18% | 2 (1–6) |
| Small intestine | 9628 | 2584 | 239 | 2.48% (2.17–2.79%) | 9.25% | 0.43% | 8 (2–22) |
| Colon & rectum | 186,539 | 37,739 | 9645 | 5.17% (5.07–5.27%) | 25.56% | 17.48% | 11 (3–25) |
| Tumor site | |||||||
| Right colon | 72,383 | 13,857 | 2777 | 3.84% (3.70–3.98%) *** | 20.04% | 5.03% | 8 (2–21) *** |
| Left colon | 64,014 | 13,773 | 3370 | 5.26% (5.09–5.44%) | 24.47% | 6.11% | 13 (3–28) |
| Unspecified colon | 4727 | 2549 | 746 | 15.78% (14.74–16.82%) | 29.27% | 1.35% | 3 (1–12) |
| Rectum | 45,415 | 7560 | 2752 | 6.06% (5.84–6.28%) | 36.40% | 4.99% | 15 (5–29) |
| CEA level | |||||||
| CEA elevated | 51,520 | 21,670 | 5987 | 11.62% (11.34–11.90%) *** | 27.63% | 10.85% | 11 (3–24) *** |
| CEA normal | 54,991 | 4642 | 840 | 1.53% (1.43–1.63%) | 18.10% | 1.52% | 20 (7–38) |
| CEA borderline | 547 | 69 | 11 | 2.01% (0.83–3.19%) | 15.94% | 0.02% | 11 (3–27) |
| CEA unknown | 38,692 | 1546 | 178 | 0.46% (0.39–0.53%) | 11.51% | 0.32% | 14 (4–50) |
| Perineural Invasion | |||||||
| Yes | 16,415 | 5333 | 944 | 5.75% (5.39–6.11%) *** | 17.70% | 1.71% | 18 (6–34) *** |
| No | 124,544 | 15,576 | 3332 | 2.68% (2.59–2.76%) | 21.39% | 6.04% | 15 (5–31) |
| Unknown | 45,580 | 16,830 | 5369 | 11.78% (11.48–12.08%) | 31.90% | 9.73% | 8 (2–21) |
| Anus | 9405 | 695 | 183 | 1.95% (1.67–2.22%) | 26.33% | 0.33% | 11 (5–23) |
| Other GI | 8611 | 3222 | 680 | 7.90% (7.33–8.47%) | 21.10% | 1.23% | 2 (0–7) |
| Kidney | 69,605 | 9564 | 5823 | 8.37% (8.16–8.57%) | 60.88% | 10.55% | 8 (2–22) |
| Fuhrman grade | |||||||
| I | 6144 | 131 | 81 | 1.32% (1.03–1.60%) *** | 61.83% | 0.15% | 12 (4–61) *** |
| II | 28,826 | 906 | 511 | 1.77% (1.62–1.93%) | 56.40% | 0.93% | 20 (7–44) |
| III | 16,496 | 1624 | 956 | 5.80% (5.44–6.15%) | 58.87% | 1.73% | 17 (6–40) |
| IV | 4832 | 1569 | 1010 | 20.90% (19.76–22.05%) | 64.37% | 1.83% | 11 (5–29) |
| Unknown | 13,307 | 5334 | 3265 | 24.54% (23.80–25.27%) | 61.21% | 5.92% | 4 (2–12) |
| Bladder | 41,668 | 3348 | 1215 | 2.92% (2.75–3.08%) | 36.29% | 2.20% | 4 (1–11) |
| Pathological grade | |||||||
| Low | 3231 | 61 | 27 | 0.84% (0.52–1.15%) *** | 44.26% | 0.05% | 4 (2–15) *** |
| High | 32,596 | 2322 | 813 | 2.49% (2.32–2.66%) | 35.01% | 1.47% | 4 (2–11) |
| Unknown | 5841 | 965 | 375 | 6.42% (5.79–7.05%) | 38.86% | 0.68% | 3 (1–9) |
| Prostate | 309,918 | 15,735 | 1339 | 0.43% (0.41–0.46%) | 8.51% | 2.43% | 22 (8–63) |
| PSA level | |||||||
| 1st quantile | 67,653 | 588 | 81 | 0.12% (0.09–0.15%) *** | 13.78% | 0.15% | 11 (5–32) *** |
| 2nd quantile | 64,654 | 317 | 28 | 0.04% (0.03–0.06%) | 8.83% | 0.05% | 14 (6–42) |
| 3rd quantile | 64,571 | 685 | 46 | 0.07% (0.05–0.09%) | 6.72% | 0.08% | 22 (11–NA) |
| 4th quantile | 64,103 | 5332 | 373 | 0.58% (0.52–0.64%) | 7.00% | 0.68% | 27 (9–72) |
| Unknown | 48,937 | 8813 | 811 | 1.66% (1.54–1.77%) | 9.20% | 1.47% | 20 (9–53) |
| Testis | 15,881 | 1791 | 1129 | 7.11% (6.71–7.51%) | 63.04% | 2.05% | NA (20–NA) |
| Other GU | 8718 | 1152 | 529 | 6.07% (5.57–6.57%) | 45.92% | 0.96% | 5 (2–12) |
| Ovary | 29,789 | 7790 | 1696 | 5.69% (5.43–5.96%) | 21.77% | 3.07% | 16 (2–36) |
| CA125 level | |||||||
| Elevated | 20,383 | 6164 | 1343 | 6.59% (6.25–6.93%) *** | 21.79% | 2.43% | 18 (3–37) *** |
| Normal | 2761 | 176 | 29 | 1.05% (0.67–1.43%) | 16.48% | 0.05% | 12 (4–25) |
| Borderline | 36 | 4 | 0 | NA | 0.00% | 0.00% | NA |
| Unknown | 6609 | 1446 | 324 | 4.90% (4.38–5.42%) | 22.41% | 0.59% | 7 (1–27) |
| Uterus | 73,342 | 4206 | 1232 | 1.68% (1.59–1.77%) | 29.29% | 2.23% | 8 (2–22) |
| Cervix | 20,658 | 2712 | 844 | 4.09% (3.82–4.36%) | 31.12% | 1.53% | 7 (3–17) |
| Other GYN | 10,514 | 1355 | 457 | 4.35% (3.96–4.74%) | 33.73% | 0.83% | 5 (1–23) |
| Bone tumor | 5079 | 863 | 609 | 11.99% (11.10–12.88%) | 70.57% | 1.10% | 19 (8–NA) |
| STS | 25,093 | 3537 | 2181 | 8.69% (8.34–9.04%) | 61.66% | 3.95% | 8 (2–23) |
| Skin Melanoma | 107,287 | 2256 | 1065 | 0.99% (0.93–1.05%) | 47.21% | 1.93% | 6 (2–20) |
| Ulceration | |||||||
| Yes | 13,441 | 619 | 268 | 1.99% (1.76–2.23%) *** | 43.30% | 0.49% | 7 (3–22) *** |
| No | 89,168 | 567 | 235 | 0.26% (0.23–0.30%) | 41.45% | 0.43% | 11 (4–39) |
| Unknown | 4678 | 1070 | 562 | 12.01% (11.08–12.95%) | 52.52% | 1.02% | 4 (1–13) |
| Non-skin melanoma | 3084 | 247 | 106 | 3.44% (2.79–4.08%) | 42.91% | 0.19% | 6 (3–14) |
| Skin cancer | 5345 | 203 | 37 | 0.69% (0.47–0.91%) | 18.23% | 0.07% | 9 (6–18) |
| Embryonal tumors | 4281 | 877 | 334 | 7.80% (7.00–8.61%) | 38.08% | 0.61% | NA (19–NA) |
| All other | 33,068 | 8408 | 2903 | 8.78% (8.47–9.08%) | 34.53% | 5.26% | 5 (1–20) |
a Prevalence was only calculated in categories with more than 5 sLM cases. b The ratios here represent the percentage of synchronous lung metastasis cases over all metastatic cases. c These data represent the percentage of synchronous lung metastasis from a specific site of origin over all lung metastasis cases. For instance, 0.03% of synchronous lung metastases originate from the brain. d Survival data (in months) are shown as the median survival and interquartile range in cases with synchronous lung metastasis at diagnosis. e Liver cancer here includes hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Abbreviations: sLM: synchronous lung metastasis; HER-2: Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2; HR: hormone receptor; BR grade: Bloom–Richardson grade; AFP: alpha-fetoprotein; GI: gastrointestinal cancer; CRC: colorectal cancer; CEA: carcinoembryonic antigen; GU: genitourinary cancer; PSA: prostate specific antigen; CA125: cancer antigen 125; GYN: gynaecologic cancer; STS: soft-tissue sarcoma; NA: non-applicable; ***: p < 0.001 for intragroup survival comparison by Chi-square tests or log-rank tests.
Table 2.
Number of all cases, metastatic cases and cases with synchronous lung metastasis and their corresponding prevalence, distribution, and median survival with interquartile range by clinicodemographic variables.
Table 2.
Number of all cases, metastatic cases and cases with synchronous lung metastasis and their corresponding prevalence, distribution, and median survival with interquartile range by clinicodemographic variables.
| Categories | Number of Cases | Prevalence a | Ratio | Distribution c | Survival d | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Metastasis | sLM | sLM | sLM/Metastasis b | |||
| Year of diagnosis | |||||||
| 2010 | 232,553 | 25,223 | 6776 | 2.91% (2.85–2.98%) *** | 26.86% | 12.28% | 7 (2–22) *** |
| 2011 | 236,568 | 25,572 | 7144 | 3.02% (2.95–3.09%) | 27.94% | 12.94% | 7 (2–22) |
| 2012 | 234,008 | 26,323 | 7504 | 3.21% (3.14–3.28%) | 28.51% | 13.60% | 7 (2–21) |
| 2013 | 234,946 | 27,393 | 7878 | 3.35% (3.28–3.43%) | 28.76% | 14.27% | 7 (2–23) |
| 2014 | 238,679 | 28,404 | 8172 | 3.42% (3.35–3.50%) | 28.77% | 14.81% | 7 (2–23) |
| 2015 | 245,850 | 29,658 | 8544 | 3.48% (3.40–3.55%) | 28.81% | 15.48% | 7 (2–22) |
| 2016 | 249,661 | 31,439 | 9175 | 3.67% (3.60–3.75%) | 29.18% | 16.62% | 8 (2–NA) |
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | 873,620 | 94,869 | 27,642 | 3.16% (3.13–3.20%) *** | 29.14% | 50.08% | 8 (2–25) *** |
| Male | 798,645 | 99,143 | 27,551 | 3.45% (3.41–3.49%) | 27.79% | 49.92% | 7 (2–20) |
| Race | |||||||
| Caucasian | 1,323,660 | 149,175 | 42,188 | 3.19% (3.16–3.22%) *** | 28.28% | 76.44% | 7 (2–23) *** |
| African American | 187,441 | 27,368 | 7687 | 4.10% (4.01–4.19%) | 28.09% | 13.93% | 7 (2–20) |
| Other | 132,299 | 16,772 | 5138 | 3.88% (3.78–3.99%) | 30.63% | 9.31% | 8 (2–24) |
| Unknown | 28,865 | 697 | 180 | 0.62% (0.53–0.71%) | 25.82% | 0.33% | 14 (4–NA) |
| Age group | |||||||
| 0–18 | 13,939 | 1873 | 926 | 6.64% (6.23–7.06%) *** | 49.44% | 1.68% | NA (17–NA) *** |
| 19–40 | 115,626 | 9374 | 3311 | 2.86% (2.77–2.96%) | 35.32% | 6.00% | 21 (7–NA) |
| 41–60 | 597,058 | 63,954 | 17,863 | 2.99% (2.95–3.04%) | 27.93% | 32.36% | 9 (3–26) |
| 61–80 | 794,720 | 96,147 | 26,863 | 3.38% (3.34–3.42%) | 27.94% | 48.67% | 6 (1–19) |
| 81+ | 150,922 | 22,664 | 6230 | 4.13% (4.03–4.23%) | 27.49% | 11.29% | 3 (1–10) |
| T stage | |||||||
| T1 | 715,832 | 20,927 | 5618 | 0.78% (0.76–0.81%) *** | 26.85% | 10.18% | 9 (2–27) *** |
| T2 | 403,599 | 30,559 | 8392 | 2.08% (2.04–2.12%) | 27.46% | 15.20% | 9 (2–29) |
| T3 | 285,021 | 48,304 | 12,631 | 4.43% (4.36–4.51%) | 26.15% | 22.89% | 11 (3–29) |
| T4 | 110,768 | 39,789 | 11,325 | 10.22% (10.05–10.40%) | 28.46% | 20.52% | 7 (2–20) |
| Unknown | 157,045 | 54,433 | 17,227 | 10.97% (10.81–11.12%) | 31.65% | 31.21% | 4 (1–15) |
| N stage | |||||||
| N0 | 1,184,206 | 72,679 | 19,196 | 1.62% (1.60–1.64%) *** | 26.41% | 34.78% | 8 (2–25) *** |
| N1 | 255,900 | 59,633 | 17,193 | 6.72% (6.62–6.82%) | 28.83% | 31.15% | 8 (2–23) |
| N2 | 90,865 | 21,136 | 5313 | 5.85% (5.69–6.00%) | 25.14% | 9.63% | 9 (2–24) |
| N3 | 23,729 | 7065 | 2173 | 9.16% (8.79–9.52%) | 30.76% | 3.94% | 10 (3–30) |
| Unknown | 117,565 | 33,499 | 11,318 | 9.63% (9.46–9.80%) | 33.79% | 20.51% | 4 (1–15) |
| Insurance status | |||||||
| Insured | 1,540,367 | 181,774 | 51,501 | 3.34% (3.32–3.37%) *** | 28.33% | 93.31% | 7 (2–23) ns |
| Uninsured | 42,868 | 8546 | 2663 | 6.21% (5.98–6.44%) | 31.16% | 4.82% | 6 (1–21) |
| Unknown | 89,030 | 3692 | 1029 | 1.16% (1.09–1.23%) | 27.87% | 1.86% | 5 (1–22) |
| Marital status | |||||||
| Married | 911,531 | 97,059 | 26,141 | 2.87% (2.83–2.90%) *** | 26.93% | 47.36% | 8 (2–23) *** |
| Unmarried | 610,219 | 87,716 | 26,503 | 4.34% (4.29–4.39%) | 30.21% | 48.02% | 6 (2–21) |
| Unknown | 150,515 | 9237 | 2549 | 1.69% (1.63–1.76%) | 27.60% | 4.62% | 7 (2–23) |
| County-level income | |||||||
| 1st quantile | 80,355 | 10,542 | 2900 | 3.61% (3.48–3.74%) *** | 27.51% | 5.25% | 6 (2–19) *** |
| 2nd quantile | 162,810 | 20,689 | 5917 | 3.63% (3.54–3.73%) | 28.60% | 10.72% | 6 (2–20) |
| 3rd quantile | 223,745 | 26,546 | 7504 | 3.35% (3.28–3.43%) | 28.27% | 13.60% | 7 (2–21) |
| 4th quantile | 1,203,286 | 135,898 | 38,754 | 3.22% (3.19–3.25%) | 28.52% | 70.22% | 8 (2–23) |
| Unknown | 2069 | 337 | 118 | 5.70% (4.70–6.70%) | 35.01% | 0.21% | 5 (1–13) |
| County-level education | |||||||
| 1st quantile | 58,086 | 7592 | 2078 | 3.58% (3.43–3.73%) *** | 27.37% | 3.76% | 6 (2–18) *** |
| 2nd quantile | 125,184 | 15,693 | 4524 | 3.61% (3.51–3.72%) | 28.83% | 8.20% | 6 (2–20) |
| 3rd quantile | 301,780 | 36,451 | 10,382 | 3.44% (3.38–3.51%) | 28.48% | 18.81% | 7 (2–20) |
| 4th quantile | 1,185,146 | 133,939 | 38,091 | 3.21% (3.18–3.25%) | 28.44% | 69.01% | 8 (2–24) |
| Unknown | 2069 | 337 | 118 | 5.70% (4.70–6.70%) | 35.01% | 0.21% | 5 (1–13) |
| Residence | |||||||
| Metro | 1,489,707 | 171,907 | 48,948 | 3.29% (3.26–3.31%) *** | 28.47% | 88.69% | 7 (2–23) *** |
| Urban | 159,003 | 19,010 | 5346 | 3.36% (3.27–3.45%) | 28.12% | 9.69% | 7 (2–20) |
| Rural | 23,351 | 3086 | 898 | 3.85% (3.60–4.09%) | 29.10% | 1.63% | 6 (2–17) |
| Unknown | 204 | 9 | 1 | NA | 11.11% | 0.00% | 73 (73–73) |
a Prevalence was only calculated in categories with more than 5 sLM cases. b The ratios here represent the percentage of synchronous lung metastasis cases over all metastatic cases. c These data represent the percentage of synchronous lung metastasis from a specific group over all lung metastasis cases. For instance, 12.28% of synchronous lung metastases were diagnosed in 2010. d Survival data (in months) are shown as the median survival with interquartile range by Kaplan–Meier analyses in cases with synchronous lung metastasis at diagnosis, and the statistical tests were performed by log-rank tests. Abbreviation: NA: non-applicable; sLM: synchronous lung metastasis. ns: non-significant; ***: p < 0.001% for intragroup survival comparison by Chi-square tests or log-rank tests.
Table 3.
Multivariate logistic regression of occurrence of synchronous lung metastasis adjusted by primary cancer site.
Table 3.
Multivariate logistic regression of occurrence of synchronous lung metastasis adjusted by primary cancer site.
| Categories | OR | 95% CI | p-Value | Categories | OR | 95% CI | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Liver metastasis | ||||||
| Female | Reference | Yes | Reference | ||||
| Male | 1.01 | (0.98–1.03) | ns | No | 0.16 | (0.16–0.17) | *** |
| Race | Unknown | 0.83 | (0.75–0.92) | *** | |||
| Caucasian | Reference | NA | 0.71 | (0.45–1.14) | ns | ||
| African American | 1.17 | (1.14–1.21) | *** | Insurance | |||
| Other | 1.15 | (1.11–1.19) | *** | Insured | Reference | ||
| Unknown | 0.46 | (0.39–0.53) | *** | Uninsured | 1.27 | (1.21–1.33) | *** |
| Age group | Unknown | 0.68 | (0.64–0.74) | *** | |||
| 0–18 | Reference | Marital status | |||||
| 19–40 | 0.70 | (0.63–0.77) | *** | Married | Reference | ||
| 41–60 | 0.82 | (0.74–0.90) | *** | Unmarried | 1.18 | (1.16–1.20) | *** |
| 61–80 | 1.01 | (0.92–1.12) | ns | Unknown | 0.90 | (0.86–0.95) | *** |
| 81+ | 1.10 | (0.99–1.21) | ns | County-level income | |||
| T stage | 1st quantile | Reference | |||||
| T1 | Reference | 2nd quantile | 1.02 | (0.96–1.08) | ns | ||
| T2 | 2.37 | (2.28–2.46) | *** | 3rd quantile | 0.99 | (0.93–1.04) | ns |
| T3 | 3.10 | (2.99–3.21) | *** | 4th quantile | 0.98 | (0.93–1.04) | ns |
| T4 | 5.80 | (5.58–6.03) | *** | Unknown | NA | NA | NA |
| TX | 5.43 | (5.22–5.64) | *** | County-level education | |||
| N stage | 1st quantile | Reference | |||||
| N0 | Reference | 2nd quantile | 1.03 | (0.96–1.10) | ns | ||
| N1 | 2.20 | (2.14–2.25) | *** | 3rd quantile | 1.02 | (0.95–1.08) | ns |
| N2 | 1.84 | (1.77–1.92) | *** | 4th quantile | 0.99 | (0.93–1.06) | ns |
| N3 | 2.74 | (2.59–2.91) | *** | Unknown | 1.32 | (1.05–1.67) | * |
| NX | 1.71 | (1.65–1.77) | *** | Residence | |||
| Bone metastasis | Metro | Reference | |||||
| Yes | Reference | Urban | 0.99 | (0.95–1.03) | ns | ||
| No | 0.17 | (0.17–0.18) | *** | Rural | 1.06 | (0.97–1.16) | ns |
| Unknown | 0.53 | (0.48–0.60) | *** | Unknown | 0.34 | (0.05–2.50) | ns |
| NA | 0.73 | (0.29–1.85) | ns | ||||
| Brain metastasis | |||||||
| Yes | Reference | ||||||
| No | 0.17 | (0.16–0.18) | *** | ||||
| Unknown | 0.44 | (0.39–0.49) | *** | ||||
| NA | 0.65 | (0.26–1.64) | ns | ||||
Abbreviations: OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; NA: non-applicable, ns: non-significant; *: <0.05; ***: <0.001 for comparison with reference group.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Wang, S.; Chen, L.; Feng, Y.; Swinnen, J.V.; Jonscher, C.; Van Ongeval, C.; Ni, Y. Heterogeneity of Synchronous Lung Metastasis Calls for Risk Stratification and Prognostic Classification: Evidence from a Population-Based Database. Cancers 2022, 14, 1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071608
AMA Style
Wang S, Chen L, Feng Y, Swinnen JV, Jonscher C, Van Ongeval C, Ni Y. Heterogeneity of Synchronous Lung Metastasis Calls for Risk Stratification and Prognostic Classification: Evidence from a Population-Based Database. Cancers. 2022; 14(7):1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071608
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Shuncong, Lei Chen, Yuanbo Feng, Johan V. Swinnen, Charles Jonscher, Chantal Van Ongeval, and Yicheng Ni. 2022. "Heterogeneity of Synchronous Lung Metastasis Calls for Risk Stratification and Prognostic Classification: Evidence from a Population-Based Database" Cancers 14, no. 7: 1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071608
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
