Use and correlates of carotid ultrasound in survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

Authors

null

Yolanda C Bryce

Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, NY

Yolanda C Bryce , Gregory T. Armstrong , Wendy M. Leisenring , Jillian Whitton , Eric Jessen Chow , Brent R. Weil , Bryan Dieffenbach , Rebecca M. Howell , Kevin C. Oeffinger , Paul C. Nathan , Emily S. Tonorezos

Organizations

Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, NY, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, Fred Hutch, Seattle, WA, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, Duke University, Durham, NC, Division of Haematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD

Research Funding

No funding received

Background: Survivors of childhood cancer with history of radiation therapy (RT) to the head/neck/chest are at increased risk for stroke. Children’s Oncology Group Guidelines recommend carotid ultrasound (CU) when clinically indicated or 10 years after RT ≥ 40Gy to the neck. Yet, the use of CU has not been previously described. Methods: 8,693 survivors of childhood cancer (median age at diagnosis 8.0 years, range 0-20; median age at evaluation 37.4, range 18-65) diagnosed between 1970-1999 were asked if they had ever had a CU. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) was defined as any of the following: stroke, congestive heart failure, hypertension, myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease, or arrythmia. Prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated; age and sex-adjusted multivariable Poisson regression models evaluated factors associated with CU. Results: 4.9% (427) of survivors had a history of stroke and 28% (2,442) had a history of any CVD. Of these, 40.0% (171) with a history of stroke and 28.6% (748) with any CVD had CU. Comparatively, 14.6% (1,404) without a stroke and 11.1% (798) without any CVD had a CU (both p<0.0001 vs those with condition). Among survivors without CVD, having seen only a primary care physician was not associated with CU (PR 0.84 95% CI 0.58-1.25, p = 0.36), while seeing a cancer specialist (+/- a primary care physician) (PR 1.83 95% CI 1.23-2.79, p = 0.036) was associated with increased likelihood of CU compared to seeing neither. Survivors who had had other surveillance studies, including a colonoscopy (PR 1.76 95% CI 1.44-2.17, p<0.0001), skin cancer exam (PR 1.62 95% CI 1.30-2.03, p=0.0002), or mammogram (PR 2.06 95%CI 1.42-3.07, p<0.0001) were more likely to have a carotid ultrasound, compared to those without that test. Having a history of anthracyclines or RT to the neck were associated with higher prevalence of CU, with RT to the neck exhibiting a dose-response relationship (Table). Conclusions: CU was more common among survivors with a history of stroke or other CVD event. In those without CVD, CU use was associated with anthracyclines and RT dose exposures and with care provided by a cancer specialist. A high proportion (70%) of survivors who received >40Gy RT to the neck have never had a CU, suggesting that greater awareness of guidelines is needed.

Multivariable model of treatments associated with CU in patients with no CVD.

Treatment
Never CU

N(%)
Ever CU

N(%)
PR*
95% CI
P
Anthracyclines
No
2815 (86)
450 (14)
1.00
-
-
-
Yes
3158 (92)
276 (8)
1.95
1.67
2.27
<.0001
Neck RT dose
0 Gy
3388 (92)
281 (8)
1.00
.
.
.
>0 - <40 GY
2464 (86)
394 (14)
1.54
1.32
1.79
<.0001
>40 Gy
121 (70)
51 (30)
3.41
2.50
4.57
<.0001

*Adjusted for attained age and sex.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2022 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Publication Only

Session Title

Pediatric Oncology

Track

Pediatric Oncology

Sub Track

Survivorship

Citation

J Clin Oncol 40, 2022 (suppl 16; abstr e22023)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.e22023

Abstract #

e22023

Abstract Disclosures