Empirical models for predicting the secondary metachronous tumor after chemoradiation therapy of the primary tumor in the clinical examination of cancer patients

«Radiation and Risk», 2022, vol. 31, No. 1, pp.74-82

DOI: 10.21870/0131-3878-2022-31-1-74-82

Authors

Shunko E.L. – Assoc. Prof., C. Sc., Med., TyumSMU. Contacts: 54 Odesskaia str., Tyumen, Russia, 625023. Tel.: +7 919 9253047; e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Vazhenin A.V. – Head of Dep., MD, Prof., Academician of RAS, South-Ural SMU.
Shanazarov N.A. – Dep. Director, MD, Prof., MCH of President’s affairs administration of the RK.
¹ FSBEI HE Tyumen State Medical University of Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, Tyumen
² FSBEI HE South-Ural State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, Chelyabinsk
³ Medical Centre Hospital of President’s affairs administration of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan

Abstract

Evaluation of the possibility of applying empirical models for predicting a secondary metachronous tumor after chemoradiation therapy of the primary tumor in order to increase the efficiency of cancer patients medical examination were presented. This is the retrospective research based on archived data of the Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Center of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine (GBUZ «CHOKZO and YAM», Chelyabinsk). The subjects of the research are medical records, medical and radiation maps, electronic databases on chemoradiation therapy of cancer patients in BSSC «CHOKZO and YAM», unloading from the database on treatment of patients with PM ZOH for the period 1990-2015. The study group contained 168 patients after chemoradiation therapy and a control group of 300 patients after surgery of the primary tumor. Models for prediction of the secondary metachronous tumor were constructed with the use of the module «Analysis of survival STATISTICA» («Statistica Version 10.0.0.0») and multi-factor analysis (Cox model), all complications that led to changes in treatment (scheme, interval between courses) were taking into account. The compliance of the empirical model with the results of the study was tested by the chisquare criterion (x²). On average, the patients received 2.83 courses of chemotherapy and 1.15 courses of radiation therapy, the duration of chemotherapy and radiation therapy was 3.37 months and 1.87 months respectively. The duration of the interval between treatments was 2.33 months and 1.30 months, respectively. Complications of chemoradiotherapy were reported in 80 patients (47.6%). Our empirical models for predicting the secondary metachronous tumor after chemoradiation therapy of the primary tumor demonstrated the highest probability of the secondary metachronous tumor development in five time intervals: 3,804.09-4,564.91 days (10.42-12.51 years) for chemotherapy HR=2.14; risk 68.2%; for radiation therapy HR=2.00; risk 66.7%), 6,847.36-7,608.18 days (18.76-20.84 years; for chemother-apy HR=1.75; risk 63.6%; for radiation therapy HR=1.91; risk 65.6%), 7,608.18-8,369.00 days (20.84-22.93 years; for chemotherapy HR=1.71; risk 63.1%; for radiotherapy HR=1.67; risk 62.5%); 3,043.27-,3804.09 days (8.34-10.42 years; for radiotherapy HR=1.92; chance 65.9%; for chemother-apy HR=1.35; risk 57.45%) and 5,325.73-6,086.55 (14.59-16.67 years; for radiation therapy HR=2.00; risk 66.70%; for chemotherapy HR=1.56; risk 60.94%). The knowledge of the timing of the second metachronous tumor after chemoradiation therapy of the primary tumor makes it possible to draw up more precisely and, if necessary, adjust the plan of outpatient observation individually for each cancerl patient after chemoradiation treatment of the first tumor.

Key words
malignant neoplasms, polyneoplasia, multiple primary tumors, metachronous malignant tumors, chemoradiation treatment, risk prediction models.

References

1. Vazhenin A.V., Bekhtereva E.I., Bekhtereva S.A., Gyulov KH.YA. Ocherki pervichnoy mnozhestvennosti zlokachestvennykh opukholey [Essays on the primary plurality of malignant tumors]. Chelyabinsk, Hieroglyph, 2000. 213 p.

2. Bartkowiak D., Humble N., Suhr P., Hagg J., Mair K., Polivka B., Schneider U., Bottke D., Wiegel T. Second cancer after radiotherapy, 1981-2007. Radiother. Oncol., 2012, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 122-126.

3. Berrington de Gonzalez A., Curtis R.E., Kry S.F., Gilbert E., Lamart S., Berg Ch.D., Stovall M., Ron E. Proportion of second cancers attributable to radiotherapy treatment in adults: a cohort study in the US SEER cancer registries. Lancet Oncol., 2011, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 353-360.

4. Shin D.W., Baik Y.Ji., Kim Y.W., Oh J.H., Chung Ki-W., Kim S.W., Lee W.-Ch., Yun Y.H., Cho J. Knowledge, attitudes, and practice on second primary cancer screening among cancer survivors: a qualitative study. Patient Educ. Couns., 2011, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 74-78.

5. Tubiana M. Can we reduce the incidence of second primary malignancies occurring after radiotherapy? A critical review. Radiother. Oncol., 2009, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 4-15.

6. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality). Eds.: A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, G.V. Pe-trova. Moscow, Р. Hertsen MORI – branch of the NMRRC of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 2018. 250 p. (In Russian).

7. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2018 (morbidity and mortality). Eds.: A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, G.V. Pe-trova. Moscow, Р. Hertsen MORI – branch of the NMRRC of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 2019. 250 p. (In Russian).

8. De Vathaire F., Hawkins M., Campbell S., Oberlin O., Raquin M.-A., Schlienger J.-Y., Shamsaldin A., Diallo I., Bell J., Grimaud E., Hardiman C., Lagrange J., Daly-Schveitzer N., Panis X., Zucker J.-M. H., Sancho-Garnier H., Eschwege F., Chavaudra J., Lemerle J. Second malignant neoplasms after a first cancer in childhood: temporal pattern of risk according to type of treatment. Br. J. Cancer, 1999, vol. 79, no. 11-12, pp. 1884-1893.

9. Jenkinson H.C., Hawkins M.M., Stiller C.A., Winter D.L., Marsden H.B., Stevens M.C.G. Long-term population-based risks of second malignant neoplasms after childhood cancer in Britain. Br. J. Cancer, 2004, vol. 91, no. 11, pp. 1905-1910.

10. Guerin S., Guibout C., Shamsaldin A., Dondon M.-G., Diallo I., Hawkins M., Oberlin O., Hartmann O., Michon J., Le Deley M.-C., de Vathaire F. Concomitant chemo-radiotherapy and local dose of radiation as risk factors for second malignant neoplasms after solid cancer in childhood: a case-control study. Int. J. Cancer, 2007, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 96-102.

11. Fedorov V.E., Barsukov V.Yu., Popova T.N., Selezneva T.D. Features of the course and difficulties in diagnosing multiple malignant neoplasms. Med. Al’manakh – Med. Almanac, 2011, no. 2 (15), pp. 157-160. (In Russian).

12. Berrington de Gonzalez A., Curtis R., Gilbert E., Berg C.D., Smith S.A., Stovall M., Ron E. Second solid cancers after radiotherapy for breast cancer in SEER cancer registries. Br. J. Cancer, 2010, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 220-226.

13. Lang B.H-H., Wong I.O.L., Wong K.P., Cowling B.J., Wan K.-Y. Risk of second primary malignancy in differentiated thyroid carcinoma treated with radioactive iodine therapy. Surgery, 2012, vol. 151, no. 6, pp. 844-850.

14. Grantzau T., Mellemkjær L., Overgaard J. Second primary cancers after adjuvant radiotherapy in early breast cancer patients: a national population based study under the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Radiother. Oncol., 2013, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 42-49.

15. Liu C-H., Chen H.-J., Wang P.-C., Chen H.-S., Chang Y.-L. Patterns of recurrence and second primary tumors in oral squamous cell carcinoma treated with surgery alone. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci., 2013, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 554-559.

Full-text article (in Russian)