Article

Cause of mortality in 5-year survivors of childhood cancer

Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA.
Pediatric Blood & Cancer (Impact Factor: 2.56). 06/2007; 48(7):723-6. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21114
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer are at risk for long-term effects of disease and treatment. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study assessed overall and cause-specific mortality in a retrospective cohort of 20,690 5-year survivors. Eligible subjects were individuals diagnosed with cancer (from 1970 to 1986) before the age of 21 who had survived 5 years from diagnosis. Underlying cause of death was obtained from death certificates and other sources, then and coded and categorized as recurrent disease, sequel of cancer treatment, or non-cancer-related. Age and sex standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated using United States population mortality data. The cohort demonstrated an 8.2-fold excess in overall mortality (95% confidence interval, 7.9 to 8.5). Recurrence of the original cancer was the leading cause of death among 5-year survivors, accounting for 57% of deaths. Statistically significant excess mortality rates were seen due to subsequent malignancies (SMR = 15.0), along with cardiac (SMR = 6.9), and pulmonary (SMR = 8.7). There was no increase seen for automotive accidents (SMR = 1.0), other accidents (SMR = 1.3), or suicide (SMR = 1.0). While recurrent disease remains a major contributor to late mortality in 5-year survivors of childhood cancer, significant excesses in mortality risk associated with treatment-related complications exist up to 25 years after the initial cancer diagnosis.

0 Followers
 · 
43 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cell death overarches carcinogenesis and is a center of cancer researches, especially therapy studies. There have been many nomenclatures on cell death, but only three cell death modes are genuine, i.e. apoptosis, necrosis and stress-induced cell death (SICD). Like apoptosis, SICD is programmed. Like necrosis, SICD is a pathological event and may trigger regeneration and scar formation. Therefore, SICD has subtypes of stress-induced apoptosis-like cell death (SIaLCD) and stress-induced necrosis-like cell death (SInLCD). Whereas apoptosis removes redundant but healthy cells, SICD removes useful but ill or damaged cells. Many studies on cell death involve cancer tissues that resemble parasites in the host patients, which is a complicated system as it involves immune clearance of the alien cancer cells by the host. Cancer resembles an evolutionarily lower-level organism having a weaker apoptosis potential and poorer DNA repair mechanisms. Hence, targeting apoptosis for cancer therapy, i.e. killing via SIaLCD, will be less efficacious and more toxic. On the other hand, necrosis of cancer cells releases cellular debris and components to stimulate immune function, thus counteracting therapy-caused immune suppression and making necrosis better than SIaLCD for chemo drug development.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. ABSTRACT: Cell death overarches carcinogenesis and is a center of cancer researches, especially therapy studies. There have been many nomenclatures on cell death, but only three cell death modes are genuine, i.e. apoptosis, necrosis and stress-induced cell death (SICD). Like apoptosis, SICD is programmed. Like necrosis, SICD is a pathological event and may trigger regeneration and scar formation. Therefore, SICD has subtypes of stress-induced apoptosis-like cell death (SIaLCD) and stress-induced necrosis-like cell death (SInLCD). Whereas apoptosis removes redundant but healthy cells, SICD removes useful but ill or damaged cells. Many studies on cell death involve cancer tissues that resemble parasites in the host patients, which is a complicated system as it involves immune clearance of the alien cancer cells by the host. Cancer resembles an evolutionarily lower-level organism having a weaker apoptosis potential and poorer DNA repair mechanisms. Hence, targeting apoptosis for cancer therapy, i.e. killing via SIaLCD, will be less efficacious and more toxic. On the other hand, necrosis of cancer cells releases cellular debris and components to stimulate immune function, thus counteracting therapy-caused immune suppression and making necrosis better than SIaLCD for chemo drug development. For over three centuries, i.e. since 1665 when the word "necrosis" first emerged, most pathologists and biologists had been familiar with only this single form of cell death, although a few compeers had noticed and described some quite different morphologic traits of dead cells, observations which are now considered to be the first descriptions of programmed cell death [1]. However, ever since 1972 when Kerr et al created the word "apoptosis" to describe some distinctive morphologic traits of cell death in tumor tissues [2], the number of concepts on cell death, each associated with a some sort of mechanism, has been increasing rapidly in the literature [1]. The following are some of these nomenclatures:, and autophagic cell death [3-6]. Many of these nomenclatures may have overlap in the demise mechanisms they describe, but probably very few cell death experts can tell all the details of these, and other unmentioned, cellular death modes. In this essay, we describe our musings on cell death in animals and on its relevance to cancer therapy, which is a continuation of previous descriptions of cellular death [1,7].
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiovascular complications are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in childhood cancer survivors. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a curable therapy for pediatric cancer. However, changes in cardiac function in children after HSCT are not well known. We assessed left ventricular (LV) function in children after HSCT using speckle tracking echocardiography (STE). Forty consecutive patients with median age of 11.9 years (range, 1.5-16 years) who received HSCT for acute leukemia and had comprehensive echocardiography before and after (median 9.2 month) HSCT were included in this study. The LV function parameters including conventional tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) and STE data were collected from pre- and post-HSCT echocardiography. These data were compared to those of 39 age-matched normal controls. Compared to normal controls, post HSCT patients had similar (p=0.06) LV ejection fraction. However, the following three LV function parameters were significantly decreased in post HSCT patients: rate-corrected velocity of circumferential fiber shortening (p=0.04), mitral inflow E velocity (p<0.001), and mitral septal annular E' velocity (p=0.03). The following four STE parameters were also significantly decreased in post HSCT patients: LV global circumferential systolic strain (p<0.01), strain rate (SR, p=0.01), circumferential diastolic SR (p<0.01), and longitudinal diastolic SR (p<0.001). There was no significant change in TDI or STE parameters after HSCT compared to pre-HSCT. Patients with anthracycline cumulative dose >400 mg/m(2) showed significantly (p<0.05) lower circumferential systolic strain and circumferential diastolic SR. Subclinical cardiac dysfunction is evident in children after HSCT. It might be associated with pre-HSCT anthracycline exposure with little effect of conditioning regimens. Serial monitoring of cardiac function is mandatory for all children following HSCT.
    Korean Circulation Journal 01/2015; 45(1):51-8. DOI:10.4070/kcj.2015.45.1.51