The effect of smoking on prostate cancer survival: a cohort analysis in Barcelona.

The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of smoking on prostate cancer-specific mortality and all-cause mortality. A retrospective cohort study was conducted with 1109 patients with prostate cancer diagnosed from 1992 to 2008, identified through the Hospital del Mar Cancer Registry (Barcelona, Spain). Information on smoking habits was retrieved from clinical records and patients were classified into three categories: never smoker, exsmoker and current smoker. Patients were followed up until December 2011. Survival curves were plotted using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Median age at diagnosis was 70.6 years and 16.7% of patients had stage IV tumours. During the follow-up period, 466 deaths occurred, 36.1% of them being specifically due to prostate cancer. The median follow-up time of the censored patients was 5.8 years. There was a significant difference in disease-specific survival between never smokers, exsmokers and current smokers (P=0.0001). Current smokers presented a worse 5-year survival rate (82.9%) compared with exsmokers (88.9%) and never smokers (89.6%). In the multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age, disease stage, Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen, the hazard ratio for smokers was 1.80 (95% confidence interval: 1.04-3.13) compared with never smokers. In the exsmokers group the risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality was very similar to that of never smokers. However, the statistical difference disappeared when we stratified by stage (I-III and IV). In conclusion, smoking was identified as an independent and negative prognostic factor for prostate cancer-specific and all-cause mortality. These findings suggest that smoking-cessation programmes could be beneficial for prostate cancer patients.

Factors related with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival depends mostly on stage at the time of diagnosis. However, symptom duration at diagnosis or treatment have also been considered as predictors of stage and survival. This study was designed to: 1) establish the distinct time-symptom duration intervals; 2) identify factors associated with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of all incident cases of symptomatic CRC during 2006-2009 (795 incident cases) in 5 Spanish regions. Data were obtained from patients' interviews and reviews of primary care and hospital clinical records. MEASUREMENTS: CRC symptoms, symptom perception, trust in the general practitioner (GP), primary care and hospital examinations/visits before diagnosis, type of referral and tumor characteristics at diagnosis. Symptom Diagnosis Interval (SDI) was calculated as time from first CRC symptoms to date of diagnosis. Symptom Treatment Interval (STI) was defined as time from first CRC symptoms until start of treatment. Nonparametric tests were used to compare SDI and STI according to different variables. RESULTS: Symptom to diagnosis interval for CRC was 128 days and symptom treatment interval was 155. No statistically significant differences were observed between colon and rectum cancers. Women experienced longer intervals than men. Symptom presentation such as vomiting or abdominal pain and the presence of obstruction led to shorter diagnostic or treatment intervals. Time elapsed was also shorter in those patients that perceived their first symptom/s as serious, disclosed it to their acquaintances, contacted emergencies services or had trust in their GPs. Primary care and hospital doctor examinations and investigations appeared to be related to time elapsed to diagnosis or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that gender, symptom perception and help-seeking behaviour are the main patient factors related to interval duration. Health service performance also has a very important role in symptom to diagnosis and treatment interval. If time to diagnosis is to be reduced, interventions and guidelines must be developed to ensure appropriate examination and diagnosis during both primary and hospital care.