Assessing long-term success and efficiency is an essential part of evaluating cancer control programs. The mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR) can serve as an insightful indicator of cancer management outcomes for individual nations. By calculating MIRs for the top five cancers in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the current study attempted to characterize the outcomes of national cancer management policies according to the health system ranking of each country. The MIRs for the five most burdensome cancers globally (lung, colorectal, prostate, stomach, and breast) were calculated for all 34 OECD countries using 2012 GLOBOCAN incidence and mortality statistics. Health system rankings reported by the World Health Organization in 2000 were updated with relevant information when possible. A linear regression model was created, using MIRs as the dependent variable and health system rankings as the independent variable. The linear relationships between MIRs and health system rankings for the five cancers were significant, with coefficients of determination ranging from 49 to 75% when outliers were excluded. A clear outlier, Korea reported lower-than-predicted MIRs for stomach and colorectal cancer, reflecting its strong national cancer control policies, especially cancer screening. The MIR was found to be a practical measure for evaluating the long-term success of cancer surveillance and the efficacy of cancer control programs, especially cancer screening. Extending the use of MIRs to evaluate other cancers may also prove useful.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised its lung cancer screening guidelines to expand screening eligibility. We evaluated screening sensitivities and racial and ethnic disparities under the 2021 USPSTF criteria vs alternative risk-based criteria in a racially and ethnically diverse population. In the Multiethnic Cohort, we evaluated the proportion of ever-smoking lung cancer cases eligible for screening (ie, screening sensitivity) under the 2021 USPSTF criteria and under risk-based criteria through the PLCO_m2012 model (6-year risk ≥1.51%). We also calculated the screening disparity (ie, absolute sensitivity difference) for each of 4 racial or ethnic groups (African American, Japanese American, Latino, Native Hawaiian) vs White cases. Among 5900 lung cancer cases, 43.3% were screen eligible under the 2021 USPSTF criteria. Screening sensitivities varied by race and ethnicity, with Native Hawaiian (56.7%) and White (49.6%) cases attaining the highest sensitivities and Latino (37.3%), African American (38.4%), and Japanese American (40.0%) cases attaining the lowest. Latino cases had the greatest screening disparity vs White cases at 12.4%, followed by African American (11.2%) and Japanese American (9.6%) cases. Under risk-based screening, the overall screening sensitivity increased to 75.7%, and all racial and ethnic groups had increased sensitivities (54.5%-91.9%). Whereas the screening disparity decreased to 5.1% for African American cases, it increased to 28.6% for Latino cases and 12.8% for Japanese American cases. In the Multiethnic Cohort, racial and ethnic disparities decreased but persisted under the 2021 USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines. Risk-based screening through PLCO_m2012 may increase screening sensitivities and help to reduce disparities in some, but not all, racial and ethnic groups. Further optimization of risk-based screening strategies across diverse populations is needed.

High incidences of breast cancer (BC) are reported in Asian women in their forties, and it is not clear whether mammographic screening reduces mortality among them. This study evaluated the effect of BC screening on mortality in Korea. We conducted a nationwide prospective cohort study of women invited to the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) between 2002 and 2003 (N = 8,300,682), with data linkage to the Korea Central Cancer Registry and death certificates through 2014 and 2015, respectively. Exposure to mammographic screening was defined using a modified never/ever approach. The primary study outcome was adjusted mortality rate ratio (MRR) for BC among screened and non-screened women estimated by Poisson regression. An adjusted MRR for all cause-death other than BC was examined to account for selection bias in the cohort. BC incidence rates for screened and non-screened women were 84.41 and 82.88 per 100,000 women-years, respectively. BC mortality rates for screened and non-screened women were 5.81 and 13.43 per 100,000 women-years, respectively, with an adjusted MRR for BC of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.41−0.44). The adjusted MRR for all-cause death excluding BC was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.52−0.52). The greatest reduction in BC mortality was noted for women aged 45−54 years, and there was no observable reduction in mortality after the age of 70 years. In conclusion, the KNCSP has been effective in reducing BC mortality among Korean women aged 40−69 years.

PurposeThe Korean National Cancer Screening Program (KNCSP) has implemented two screening methods for gastric cancer—upper gastrointestinal series (UGIS) and endoscopy—for Koreans aged ≥40 years. We aimed to assess performance trends for both screening methods.Materials and MethodsThe KNCSP database was used to evaluate individuals who underwent screening from 2007 to 2016. The final gastric cancer diagnosis was ascertained by linking with the Korean Central Cancer Registry. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional analysis to estimate performance indicators of gastric cancer screening by UGIS and endoscopy, stratified by sociodemographic factors. ResultsWe found that screening rates for gastric cancer increased from 28% to 51.7% between 2007 and 2016, and that the rate of endoscopy use for gastric cancer screening increased sharply. Cancer detection rates (CDR) of UGIS and endoscopy were 0.41 and 2.25 per 1,000 screens in 2007–2008 and 0.26 and 1.99 in 2015–2016, respectively. Interval cancer rates (ICR) per 1,000 negative screenings were 1.33 (2007–2008) and 1.21 (2015–2016) for UGIS and 1.14 (2007–2008) and 0.88 (2015–2016) for endoscopy. The sensitivity of UGIS decreased from 23.6% (2007–2008) to 17.6% (2015–2016), whereas that of endoscopy increased from 66.4% (2007–2008) to 69.3% (2015–2016). Specificity was maintained at >99% for both methods over the study period.ConclusionThe use of endoscopy for gastric cancer screening within the KNCSP has increased. Endoscopy has higher CDR, sensitivity, and specificity, and lower ICR estimates than does UGIS.

Lung cancer survivors have a high risk of developing second primary lung cancer (SPLC), but little is known about the survival impact of SPLC diagnosis. We analyzed data from 138 969 patients in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER), who were surgically treated for initial primary lung cancer (IPLC) in 1988-2013. Each patient was followed from the date of IPLC diagnosis to SPLC diagnosis (for those with SPLC) and last vital status through 2016. We performed multivariable Cox regression to evaluate the association between overall survival and SPLC diagnosis as a time-varying predictor. To investigate potential effect modification, we tested interaction between SPLC and IPLC stage. Using data from the Multiethnic Cohort Study (MEC) (n = 1540 IPLC patients with surgery), we evaluated the survival impact of SPLC by smoking status. All statistical tests were 2-sided. A total of 12 115 (8.7%) patients developed SPLC in SEER over 700 421 person-years of follow-up. Compared with patients with single primary lung cancer, those with SPLC had statistically significantly reduced overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.06 to 2.17; P < .001). The effect of SPLC on reduced survival was more pronounced among patients with early stage IPLC vs advanced-stage IPLC (HR = 2.14, 95% CI = 2.08 to 2.20, vs HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.21 to 1.70, respectively; P_interaction < .001). Analysis using MEC data showed that the effect of SPLC on reduced survival was statistically significantly larger among persons who actively smoked at initial diagnosis vs those who formerly or never smoked (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.48 to 3.61, vs HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.98 to 2.03, respectively; P_interaction = .04). SPLC diagnosis is statistically significantly associated with decreased survival in SEER and MEC. Intensive surveillance targeting patients with early stage IPLC and active smoking at IPLC diagnosis may lead to a larger survival benefit.

Purpose: Poor sleep quality is a common problem among middle-aged women. Few studies, however, have assessed differences in sleep quality among premenopausal, perimenopausal, and postmenopausal women and related risk factors in Korea women. The aim of this study was to assess sleep quality and factors associated therewith according to menopausal status in Korean women. Patients and Methods: This study was based on the 2016 Korean Study of Women’s Health Related Issues (K-Stori), a cross-sectional survey employing nationally representative random sampling. In total, 3000 Korean women aged 45 to 64 years completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Comparison of demographic characteristics and sleep quality among pre-, peri-, and postmenopausal women was conducted. Results: Among the participants, 26% suffered from poor sleep quality based on the PSQI. The prevalence of poor sleep quality increased with later menopausal stage (from 18.8% in the premenopausal stage to 29.5% in the postmenopausal stage P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that peri- and postmenopausal women were 1.50 and 1.73 times more likely to have poor sleep quality in comparison to premenopausal women, respectively. Chronic disease, depression, at-risk drinking, taking dietary supplements, and single women were associated with a higher likelihood of having poor sleep quality. Health status, at-risk drinking, chronic illness, dietary supplementation, and depression were significantly associated with poor sleep quality. Conclusion: Poor sleep quality appears to be prevalent in peri- and postmenopausal women in Korea. The management of sleep quality during menopause transition is important, and further research on how sleep disturbances influence the health status of women in menopausal transition is required.