Comparative review of human and canine osteosarcoma: morphology, epidemiology, prognosis, treatment and genetics

Osteosarcoma (OSA) is a rare cancer in people. However OSA incidence rates in dogs are 27 times higher than in people. Prognosis in both species is poor, with five year osteosarcoma survival rates in people not having improved in decades. For dogs, one year survival rates are only around ~45%. Improved and novel treatment regimens are urgently required to improve survival in both humans and dogs with OSA. Utilising information from genetic studies could assist in this in both species, with the higher incidence rates in dogs contributing to the dog population being a good model of human disease. This review compares the clinical characteristics, gross morphology and histopathology, aetiology, epidemiology, and genetics of canine and human osteosarcoma. Finally, the current position of canine osteosarcoma genetic research is discussed and areas for additional work within the canine population are identified

Data monitoring roadmap. The experience of the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register

Introduction Over the years, disease registers have been increasingly considered a source of reliable and valuable population studies. However, the validity and reliability of data from registers may be limited by missing data, selection bias or data quality not adequately evaluated or checked.This study reports the analysis of the consistency and completeness of the data in the Italian Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Register.MethodsThe Register collects, through a standardized Web-based Application, unique patients.Data are exported bimonthly and evaluated to assess the updating and completeness, and to check the quality and consistency. Eight clinical indicators are evaluated.ResultsThe Register counts 77,628 patients registered by 126 centres. The number of centres has increased over time, as their capacity to collect patients.The percentages of updated patients (with at least one visit in the last 24 months) have increased from 33% (enrolment period 2000-2015) to 60% (enrolment period 2016-2022). In the cohort of patients registered after 2016, there were >= 75% updated patients in 30% of the small centres (33), in 9% of the medium centres (11), and in all the large centres (2).Clinical indicators show significant improvement for the active patients, expanded disability status scale every 6 months or once every 12 months, visits every 6 months, first visit within 1 year and MRI every 12 months.ConclusionsData from disease registers provide guidance for evidence-based health policies and research, so methods and strategies ensuring their quality and reliability are crucial and have several potential applications