Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in people with workplace exposure to asbestos.

OBJECTIVES: Smoking is the main risk factor for lung cancer, but environmental and occupational exposure to carcinogens also increase lung cancer risk. We assessed whether extending low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening to persons with occupational exposure to asbestos may be an effective way reducing lung cancer mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study within the COSMOS screening program, assessing past asbestos exposure with a questionnaire. LDCT scans of asbestos-exposed participants were reviewed to assess the presence of pulmonary, interstitial and pleural alterations in comparison to matched unexposed controls. We also performed an exhaustive review, with meta-analysis, of the literature on LDCT screening in asbestos-exposed persons. RESULTS: Exposure to asbestos, initially self-reported by 9.8% of COSMOS participants, was confirmed in 216 of 544 assessable cases, corresponding to 2.6% of the screened population. LDCT of asbestos-exposed persons had significantly more pleural plaques, diaphragmatic pleural thickening and pleural calcifications, but similar frequency of parenchymal and interstitial alterations to unexposed persons. From 16 papers, including this study, overall lung cancer detection rates at baseline were 0.81% (95% CI 0.50-1.19) in asbestos-exposed persons, 0.94% (95% CI 0.47-1.53) in asbestos-exposed smokers (12 studies), and 0.11% (95% CI 0.00-0.43) in asbestos-exposed non-smokers (9 studies). CONCLUSION: Persons occupationally exposed to asbestos should be monitored to gather more information about risks. Although LDCT screening is effective in the early detection lung cancer in asbestos-exposed smokers, our data suggest that screening of asbestos-exposed persons with no additional risk factors for cancer does is not viable due to the low detection rate.

Nutritional Online Information for Cancer Patients: a Randomized Trial of an Internet Communication Plus Social Media Intervention.

We hypothesized that cancer patients using an Internet website would show an improvement in the knowledge about healthy eating habits, and this might be enhanced by social media interaction. A 6-month randomized intervention was set up. Eligible subjects were allocated in intervention (IG) and control groups (CG). IG had access to the website, and CG was provided with printed versions. All enrolled participants filled in Nutrition Questionnaire (NQ), Quality of Life Questionnaire (QoL) and Psychological Distress Inventory (PDI), at baseline and after 6 months. The difference between post- vs pre-questionnaires was calculated. Seventy-four subjects (CG 39; IG 35) completed the study. There was an increase in the score after the intervention in both groups for the NQ, even if not statistically significant. Dividing the IG into three categories, no (NI), low (LI) and high interactions (HI), we found a decreased score (improvement) in the CG (-0.2) and in the HI (-1.7), and an increased score (worsening) in the NI (+3.3) (p = NS) analysing the PDI. We found an increased score in the QoL both in CG and IG (adjusted LSMeans +3.5 and +2.8 points, respectively; p = NS). This study represents an example for support cancer patients. Despite the lack of significant effects, critical points and problems encountered may be of interest to researchers and organization working in the cancer setting. Intervention strategies to support patients during the care process are needed in order to attain the full potential of patient-centred care on cancer outcomes.

Vitamin supplement consumption and breast cancer risk: a review.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer globally, and studies provide contradictory results about the possible effects of vitamin supplementation to reduce cancer risk. Our aim was to conduct a review to better investigate whether vitamin supplements given orally modify breast cancer risk. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive, systematic bibliographic search of the medical literature to identify relevant studies. Case-control, cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to August 2013 that reported cancer risk estimates for vitamin supplementation were included. For each study, we retrieved study characteristics, study population, exposure evaluation, and risk estimates. RESULTS: We identified 26 studies (14 cohort, 11 case-control, and one RCT) and overall, we found 104 estimates. We grouped all the estimates into six supplementation categories: vitamin A and beta-carotene, B-group vitamins and folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, and multivitamins. Only a few studies showed a statistically significant association between the consumption of supplemental vitamins and the occurrence of breast cancer, and most of the significant estimates were found in case-control studies. The results found in prospective studies seem to be in the opposite direction. CONCLUSION: The role of vitamin supplements in preventing breast cancer still remains unclear, considering our review. Although biologic mechanisms exist to support the anticancer effects of vitamins, there is no clear evidence for an effect in cancer prevention for vitamin supplements. Further investigations are warranted to elucidate the mechanisms by which vitamin supplementation can modify breast cancer development.