Trends in Smoking-Specific Lung Cancer Incidence Rates Within a US Integrated Health System, 2007-2018.

BACKGROUND: At least 10% of lung cancers arise in adults who have never used tobacco. Data remain inconclusive on whether lung cancer incidence has been increasing among adults who have never used tobacco. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have age-adjusted incidence rates of lung cancer changed temporally, especially among adults who have never used tobacco? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Trends in lung cancer incidence were examined using linked electronic health record and cancer registry data on a dynamic cohort of adults ≥ 30 years of age at risk of incident lung cancer between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2018, from an integrated health-care system in northern California. Truncated age-adjusted lung cancer incidence rates and average annual percentage change (AAPC) in rates were estimated, overall and separately for adults who have ever and never used tobacco by age, sex, and race or ethnicity. RESULTS: The cohort included 3,751,348 adults (52.5% female, 48.0% non-Hispanic White, 63.1% have never used tobacco), among whom 18,627 (52.7% female, 68.6% non-Hispanic White, 15.4% have never used tobacco) received a diagnosis of lung cancer. The overall lung cancer incidence rate declined from 91.1 to 63.7 per 100,000 person-years between 2007 and 2009 and between 2016 and 2018 (AAPC, -3.9%; 95% CI, -4.2% to -3.6%). Among adults who have ever used tobacco, incidence rates declined overall from 167.0 to 113.4 per 100,000 person-years (AAPC, -4.2%; 95% CI, -4.4% to -3.9%) and, to varying degrees, within all age, sex, and racial or ethnic groups. Among adults who have never used tobacco, incidence rates were relatively constant, with 3-year-period estimates ranging from 19.9 to 22.6 per 100,000 person-years (AAPC, 0.9%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 2.1%). Incidence rates for adults who have never used tobacco seemed stable over time, within age, sex, and racial or ethnic groups, except for those of Asian and Pacific Islander (API) origin (AAPC, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.1%-3.9%), whose rates were about twice as high compared with their counterparts. INTERPRETATION: These observed trends underscore the need to elucidate further the cause of lung cancer in adults who have never used tobacco, including why incidence is higher and rising in API adults who have never used tobacco.

Utilization and Outcomes of Observation for Spontaneous Pneumothorax at an Integrated Health System.

INTRODUCTION: Though limited, recent evidence supports observation rather than intervention for spontaneous pneumothorax management. We sought to compare the utilization and outcomes between observation and intervention for patients with primary and secondary spontaneous pneumothoraces. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all adults presenting to Kaiser Permanente Northern California emergency rooms with spontaneous pneumothorax from 2016 to 2020 was performed. Those with prior pneumothoraces, tension physiology, bilateral pneumothoraces, effusions, and prior thoracic procedures or surgery on the affected side were excluded. Groups included observation versus intervention. Baseline clinicodemographic variables and outcomes were compared. Treatment was considered successful if further interventions were not required for pneumothorax resolution. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, chi-square tests, Fischer exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were performed. RESULTS: Of the 386 patients with primary spontaneous pneumothorax, age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, smoking status, and the Charlson comorbidity index were not different between treatment groups. Of 86 patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax, age, gender, and smoking status were not different between treatment groups. Among patients with primary pneumothoraces, 83 underwent observation while 303 underwent intervention. The success rate was 92.8% for observation and 60.4% for intervention (P < 0.0001). Among patients with secondary pneumothoraces, 15 underwent observation while 71 underwent intervention, with a successful rate of 73.3% for observation and 32.4% for intervention (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Given the high success rates for observation of both small and moderate primary and secondary pneumothoraces, observation should be considered for clinically stable patients. Observation may be the superior choice for decreasing morbidity and healthcare costs.

Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with never-smoking status in patients with lung cancer: findings from a large integrated health system.

Background: Evidence is limited characterizing sociodemographically diverse patient populations with lung cancer in relation to smoking status. Methods: In a cross-sectional analysis of adults diagnosed with lung cancer at ages ≥30 years from 2007-2018 within an integrated healthcare system, overall and sex-specific prevalence of never smoking were estimated according to sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were also estimated using modified Poisson regression to identify patient characteristics associated with never smoking, overall and by sex. Similar analyses were conducted to explore whether prevalence and association patterns differed between non-Hispanic White and Asian/Pacific Islander patients. Results: Among 17,939 patients with lung cancer, 2,780 (15.5%) never smoked and 8,698 (48.5%) had adenocarcinoma. Overall prevalence of never smoking was higher among females than males (21.2% vs. 9.2%, aPR 2.13, 95% CI: 1.98-2.29); Asian/Pacific Islander (aPR 2.85, 95% CI: 2.65-3.07) and Hispanic (aPR 1.72, 95% CI: 1.51-1.95) than non-Hispanic White patients; patients who primarily spoke Spanish (aPR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.32-1.94), any Asian language (aPR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.30), or other languages (aPR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.27-2.65) than English; patients living in the least vs. most deprived neighborhoods (aPR 1.36, 95% CI: 1.24-1.50); and patients with adenocarcinoma (aPR 2.57, 95% CI: 2.18-3.03), other non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (aPR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.63-2.45), or carcinoid (aPR 3.60, 95% CI: 2.96-4.37) than squamous cell carcinoma tumors. Patterns of never smoking associated with sociodemographic, but not clinical factors, differed by sex. The higher prevalence of never smoking associated with Asian/Pacific Islander race/ethnicity was more evident among females (aPR 3.30, 95% CI: 2.95-3.47) than males (aPR 2.25, 95% CI: 1.92-2.63), whereas the higher prevalence of never smoking associated with living in the least deprived neighborhoods was more evident among males (aPR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.56-2.38) than females (aPR 1.18, 95% CI: 1.06-1.31). Associations between primary language and never-smoking status were found only among females. Overall and sex-specific prevalence and association patterns differed between Asian/Pacific Islander and non-Hispanic white patients. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that patterns of never-smoking status associated with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics are different across sex and race/ethnicity among patients with lung cancer. Such data are critical to increasing awareness and expediting diagnosis of this disease.

Directional distribution of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus is not influenced by distance from the gastroesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: Accurate endoscopic detection and staging are critical for appropriate management of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia. Prior investigation has demonstrated that the distribution of endoscopically detectable early neoplasia is not uniform but instead favors specific directional distributions within a short BE segment; however, it is unknown whether the directional distribution of neoplasia differs with increasing distance from the gastroesophageal junction, including in patients with long-segment BE. OBJECTIVE: To identify whether directional distribution of BE-associated neoplasia is influenced by distance from the gastroesophageal junction. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with either short-segment or long-segment BE undergoing EMR. INTERVENTION: EMR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Directional distribution of BE-associated neoplasia stratified by distance from gastroesophageal junction. RESULTS: EMR was performed on 60 lesions meeting study criteria during the specified time period. Pathology demonstrated low-grade dysplasia in 22% (13/60), high-grade dysplasia in 38% (23/60), intramucosal (T1a) adenocarcinoma in 23% (14/60), and invasive (≥ T1b) adenocarcinoma in 17% (10/60). Directional distribution of lesions was not uniform (P < .001), with 62% of lesions (37/60) located between the 1 o'clock and 5 o'clock positions. When circular statistics methodology was used, there was no difference in the directional distribution of neoplastic lesions located within 3 cm of the gastroesophageal junction compared with ≥ 3 cm from the gastroesophageal junction. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study may limit external validity. CONCLUSION: The directional distribution of neoplastic foci within a BE segment is not influenced by distance of the lesion from the gastroesophageal junction. Mucosa between the 1 o'clock and 5 o'clock locations merits careful attention and endoscopic inspection in individuals with both short-segment BE and long-segment BE.

Feasibility of dual wireless esophageal pH monitoring: randomized blinded sham-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Wireless pH monitoring is currently employed in the distal esophagus. There are no controlled studies on the feasibility/safety of proximal esophageal wireless pH capsule placement. We tested the hypothesis that there will be no difference in patient perception of a more proximally placed pH capsule. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized single-blinded sham-controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary care center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All patients had a wireless pH capsule positioned 6 cm proximal to the gastroesophageal junction. They were randomized into intervention or sham groups after distal capsule placement. The delivery introducer was positioned 10 cm proximal to the distal esophageal capsule, and a second capsule was either deployed (intervention) or not (sham) based on group allocation. Patients were blinded to group assignment. Modified Edmonton Score was used to assess for chest pain, dysphagia, and odynophagia. The primary endpoints were (1) required endoscopic removal because of discomfort and (2) change in chest pain scores, controlling for baseline pain. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to either the intervention, proximal esophageal capsule (n = 11), or sham (n = 11). Patients with proximal pH probes had higher odds of having their chest pain (odds ratio [OR], 8.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-52.6; P = .02), odynophagia (OR, 49.5; 95% CI, 4.70-520; P = .001), and dysphagia (OR, 14.3; 95% CI, 2.12-96.6; P = .006) exacerbated. Two (2/11; 18%) proximally deployed probes required endoscopic removal because of patient intolerance or discomfort. CONCLUSION: A proximal esophageal wireless pH monitor placement is feasible but results in increased chest pain, odynophagia, and dysphagia that can be severe enough to require endoscopic removal. These limitations preclude its potential clinical benefit.