Incidence of lung cancer following pneumonia in smokers: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is more common in smokers compared with non-smokers. A high 1-year prevalence of lung cancer following hospitalization for pneumonia was demonstrated in heavy smokers. AIM: To assess the association between hospitalization for pneumonia among ever-smokers and subsequent lung cancer risk. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. METHODS: The study cohort included all ever-smokers aged 55-80 hospitalized for pneumonia between the years 2010-15 covered by a large medical insurer in Israel. Controls were matched to cases by age in a 4:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the association between hospitalization for pneumonia and subsequent 1-year incidence of lung cancer, adjusted for gender, smoking status (past/current) and pack years. Pre-specified sensitivity analyses excluded heavy smokers (smoking history of more than 30 pack years) and patients diagnosed with lung cancer within 30 days of hospitalization, as they probably had clinical or radiological findings suggestive of lung cancer, making them ineligible for screening. RESULTS: Lung cancer was identified in 275 of 12 807 (2.1%) patients following hospitalization for pneumonia and in 44 of 51 228 (0.1%) controls (adjusted odds ratio 22.46, 95% CI 16.29-30.96, P < 0.001). Among patients hospitalized for pneumonia, 1-year lung cancer incidence remained high after excluding heavy smokers and patients diagnosed within 30 days of the index date (1.3% and 1.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization for pneumonia is associated with high 1-year incidence of lung cancer in ever-smokers, supporting the important role of the widely used practice of performing follow up imaging post-pneumonia to exclude occult malignancy.

Comparison of published and unpublished phase I clinical cancer trials: an analysis of the CliniclTrials.gov database.

Introduction The role of phase I cancer trials is constantly evolving and they are increasingly being used in 'go/no' decisions in drug development. As a result, there is a growing need to ensure trials are published when completed. There are limited data on the publication rate and the factors associated with publication in phase I trials. Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for completed adult phase I cancer trials with reported results. PubMed was searched for matching publications published prior to April 1, 2017. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with unpublished trials. Linear regression was used to explore factors associated with time lag from study database lock to publication for published trials. Results The study cohort included 319 trials. 95 (30%) trials had no matching publication. Thirty (9%) trials were not published in abstract form as well. On multivariable analysis, the most significant factor associated with unpublished trials was industry funding (odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 1.7-6.6, p=0.019). For published trials, time lag between database lock and publication was longer by 10.9 months (standard error 3.6, p<0.001) for industry funded trials compared with medical center funded trials. Conclusions Timely publishing of early cancer clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory. Industry funded phase I cancer trials were more likely to remain unpublished, and were associated with a longer time lag from database lock to publication. Policies that promote transparency and data sharing in clinical trial research might improve accountability among industry and investigators and improve timely results publication.

Comparison of reporting phase I trial results in ClinicalTrials.gov and matched publications.

Background Data on completeness of reporting of phase I cancer clinical trials in publications are lacking. Methods The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for completed adult phase I cancer trials with reported results. PubMed was searched for matching primary publications published prior to November 1, 2016. Reporting in primary publications was compared with the ClinicalTrials.gov database using a 28-point score (2=complete; 1=partial; 0=no reporting) for 14 items related to study design, outcome measures and safety profile. Inconsistencies between primary publications and ClinicalTrials.gov were recorded. Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with incomplete reporting. Results After a review of 583 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov , 163 matching primary publications were identified. Publications reported outcomes that did not appear in ClinicalTrials.gov in 25% of trials. Outcomes were upgraded, downgraded or omitted in publications in 47% of trials. The overall median reporting score was 23/28 (interquartile range 21-25). Incompletely reported items in >25% publications were: inclusion criteria (29%), primary outcome definition (26%), secondary outcome definitions (53%), adverse events (71%), serious adverse events (80%) and dates of study start and database lock (91%). Higher reporting scores were associated with phase I (vs phase I/II) trials (p<0.001), multicenter trials (p<0.001) and publication in journals with lower impact factor (p=0.004). Conclusions Reported results in primary publications for early phase cancer trials are frequently inconsistent or incomplete compared with ClinicalTrials.gov entries. ClinicalTrials.gov may provide more comprehensive data from new cancer drug trials.

Malignancy associated SIADH: Characterization and clinical implications.

PURPOSE: To determine the distribution of etiologies for the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) in hospitalized patients with active malignancies and to characterize them according to the different etiologies. METHODS: A single center retrospective study including all patients with active malignancies diagnosed with SIADH in a large community hospital and tertiary center between 1 January 2007 and 1 January 2013. Two physicians reviewed every patient's medical file for predetermined relevant clinical data. RESULTS: The study cohort included 204 patients. 74.4% of those with solid tumors had metastatic disease. Most patients (149, 73%) had malignancy associated SIADH, while 55 (27%) had SIADH due to other etiologies. All of the major malignancy types were implicated in SIADH. Patients with breast cancer without lung or brain involvement were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with malignancy associated SIADH compared with other malignancies [Odds ratio (OR) 0.031, 95% CI 0.003-0.25, p < 0.001]. Patients with malignancy associated SIADH had lower serum sodium concentrations on short-term follow-up (p = 0.024) and significantly shorter median survival (58 vs. 910 days, p < 0.001). Short-term hyponatremia correction was associated with better survival. CONCLUSIONS: SIADH is associated with most malignancy types. Physicians caring for patients with breast cancer without lung or brain involvement diagnosed with SIADH without an obvious etiology should consider obtaining lung and brain imaging to rule out undiagnosed metastatic spread. Patients with malignancy associated SIADH have considerably worse outcomes compared to cancer patient with SIADH due to other etiologies. Short-term sodium concentration can be used as a prognostic marker for these patients.