Estimation of the feasibility of using empirical models for prediction of the second metachronous tumor after chemotherapy of the first tumor to improve cancer surveillance

Aim. To assess the possibility of using empirical models for predicting a second metachronous tumor after chemotherapy of the first one to improve the efficiency of prophylactic medical examination of cancer patients.

Material and Мethods. The objects of the study are electronic databases on the chemotherapy treatment of cancer patients, extracts from the database on the treatment of patients with PM oncology for the period 1990–2015, case histories and medical records of 796 patients with metachronous PM oncology: experimental group – 496 patients after chemotherapy, control group – 300 patients after surgical treatment of the first tumor, the sample size was not previously calculated.

Results. Empirical models for predicting a second metachronous tumor after chemotherapy of the first one showed the highest probability of a second metachronous tumor in three time intervals: 1256.00–1884.00 days (3.44–5.16 years; HR=2.25; tumor is 69.2 %), 3768.00–4396.00 days (10.32–12.04 years; HR=3.86; chance 79.4 %), 6280.00–6908.00 days (17, 21–18.93 years; HR=2.00; 66.7 % chance.

Conclusion. Based on the results of the analysis of empirical risk models for a second metachronous tumor after chemotherapy of the first one, amendments were developed to the timing of dispensary observation of patients with primary multiple metachronous malignant neoplasms after chemotherapy of the first tumor. Knowledge of the most probable timing of the occurrence of a second metachronous tumor after chemotherapy of the first one makes it possible to more accurately draw up and, if necessary, adjust the plan for dispensary observation after chemotherapy treatment of the first tumor.

1. Rubino C., de Vathaire F., Shamsaldin A., Labbe M., Lê M.G. Radiation dose chemotherapy, hormonal treatment and risk of second cancer after breast cancer treatment. Br. J. Cancer. 2003; 89: 840–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601138.

2. Travis L.B., Curtis R.E., Boice J.D., Platz C.E., Hankey B.F., Fraumeni J.F. Second malignant neoplasms among long-term survivors of ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 1996; 56(7): 1564–70.

3. 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.L., Daly-Schveitzer N., Panis X., Zucker J.M., Sancho- Garnier H., Eschwège 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; 79(11–12): 1884–93. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690300.

4. Dores G.M., Metayer C., Curtis R.E., Lynch C.F., Clarke E.A., Glimelius B., Storm H., Pukkala E., van Leeuwen F.E., Holowaty E.J., Andersson M., Wiklund T., Joensuu T., van’t Veer M.B., Stovall M., Gospodarowicz M., Travis L.B. Second malignant neoplasms among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease: a population-based evaluation over 25 years. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(16): 3484–94. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.09.038.

5. Guérin 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; 120(1): 96–102. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22197.

6. Haddy N., Le Deley M.C., Samand A., Diallo I., Guérin S., Guibout C., Oberlin O., Hawkins M., Zucker J.M., de Vathaire F. Role of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in the risk of secondary leukaemia after a solid tumour in childhood. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42(16): 2757–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.05.034.

7. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2017 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow, 2018. 250 р. (in Russian).

8. Kaprin A.D., Starinskiy V.V., Petrova G.V. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2018 (morbidity and mortality). Moscow, 2019. 250 p. (in Russian).

9. Sel’chuk V.Yu., Dolgov I.Yu., Popova T.N. The problem of primary multiplicity of malignant neoplasms in the historical aspect. Russian Journal of Oncology. 1998; 5: 51-54. (in Russian).

10. Fedorov V.E., Barsukov V.Yu., Popova T.N. Features of the course and difficulties in the diagnosis of multiple malignant neoplasms. Medical Almanac. 2011; 2(15): 157–60. (in Russian).

11. Smetanina V.D., Ivanova P.M., Karataev P.D. The incidence of primary multiple tumors in the population of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Yakut medical journal. 2008; 3: 12–4. (in Russian).

12. Bylin M.V., Cheremisina O.V., Pankova O.V., Afanasyev S.G., Dobrodeev A.Yu. Efficacy of comprehensive endoscopic diagnosis of primary and multiple primary lung cancer. Oncology Bulletin of Volga Region. 2017; 2(29):8–15. [in Russian].

13. Vazhenin A.V., Bekhtereva E.I., Bekhtereva S.A., Gyulov Kh.Ya. Essays on primary multiplicity of malignant tumors. Chelyabinsk, 2000. 213 p. (in Russian)

14. Maksimov S.Ya. Primary multiple tumors of the reproductive system. Practical Oncology. 2009; 10 (2): 117-123. (in Russian).

15. 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; 106(1): 42–9. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2013.01.002.

16. Lang B.H., Wong I.O., 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; 151(6): 844–50. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2011.12.019.

17. 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; 29(10): 554–9. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2013.03.001.