Deriving stage at diagnosis from multiple population-based sources: colorectal and lung cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Stage at diagnosis is a strong predictor of cancer survival. Differences in stage distributions and stage-specific management help explain geographic differences in cancer outcomes. Stage information is thus essential to improve policies for cancer control. Despite recent progress, stage information is often incomplete. Data collection methods and definition of stage categories are rarely reported. These inconsistencies may result in assigning conflicting stage for single tumours and confound the interpretation of international comparisons and temporal trends of stage-specific cancer outcomes. We propose an algorithm that uses multiple routine, population-based data sources to obtain the most complete and reliable stage information possible. METHODS: Our hierarchical approach derives a single stage category per tumour prioritising information deemed of best quality from multiple data sets and various individual components of tumour stage. It incorporates rules from the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification of malignant tumours. The algorithm is illustrated for colorectal and lung cancer in England. We linked the cancer-specific Clinical Audit data (collected from clinical multi-disciplinary teams) to national cancer registry data. We prioritise stage variables from the Clinical Audit and added information from the registry when needed. We compared stage distribution and stage-specific net survival using two sets of definitions of summary stage with contrasting levels of assumptions for dealing with missing individual TNM components. This exercise extends a previous algorithm we developed for international comparisons of stage-specific survival. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2012, 163 915 primary colorectal cancer cases and 168 158 primary lung cancer cases were diagnosed in adults in England. Using the most restrictive definition of summary stage (valid information on all individual TNM components), colorectal cancer stage completeness was 56.6% (from 33.8% in 2008 to 85.2% in 2012). Lung cancer stage completeness was 76.6% (from 57.3% in 2008 to 91.4% in 2012). Stage distribution differed between strategies to define summary stage. Stage-specific survival was consistent with published reports. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a robust strategy to harmonise the derivation of stage that can be adapted for other cancers and data sources in different countries. The general approach of prioritising good-quality information, reporting sources of individual TNM variables, and reporting of assumptions for dealing with missing data is applicable to any population-based cancer research using stage. Moreover, our research highlights the need for further transparency in the way stage categories are defined and reported, acknowledging the limitations, and potential discrepancies of using readily available stage variables

Lancet

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the second cycle of the CONCORD programme established global surveillance of cancer survival as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems and to inform global policy on cancer control. CONCORD-3 updates the worldwide surveillance of cancer survival to 2014. METHODS: CONCORD-3 includes individual records for 37.5 million patients diagnosed with cancer during the 15-year period 2000-14. Data were provided by 322 population-based cancer registries in 71 countries and territories, 47 of which provided data with 100% population coverage. The study includes 18 cancers or groups of cancers: oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, prostate, and melanoma of the skin in adults, and brain tumours, leukaemias, and lymphomas in both adults and children. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were rectified by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. For many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries. Survival trends are generally increasing, even for some of the more lethal cancers: in some countries, survival has increased by up to 5% for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and lung. For women diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for breast cancer is now 89.5% in Australia and 90.2% in the USA, but international differences remain very wide, with levels as low as 66.1% in India. For gastrointestinal cancers, the highest levels of 5-year survival are seen in southeast Asia: in South Korea for cancers of the stomach (68.9%), colon (71.8%), and rectum (71.1%); in Japan for oesophageal cancer (36.0%); and in Taiwan for liver cancer (27.9%). By contrast, in the same world region, survival is generally lower than elsewhere for melanoma of the skin (59.9% in South Korea, 52.1% in Taiwan, and 49.6% in China), and for both lymphoid malignancies (52.5%, 50.5%, and 38.3%) and myeloid malignancies (45.9%, 33.4%, and 24.8%). For children diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ranged from 49.8% in Ecuador to 95.2% in Finland. 5-year survival from brain tumours in children is higher than for adults but the global range is very wide (from 28.9% in Brazil to nearly 80% in Sweden and Denmark). INTERPRETATION: The CONCORD programme enables timely comparisons of the overall effectiveness of health systems in providing care for 18 cancers that collectively represent 75% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide every year. It contributes to the evidence base for global policy on cancer control. Since 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has used findings from the CONCORD programme as the official benchmark of cancer survival, among their indicators of the quality of health care in 48 countries worldwide. Governments must recognise population-based cancer registries as key policy tools that can be used to evaluate both the impact of cancer prevention strategies and the effectiveness of health systems for all patients diagnosed with cancer. FUNDING: American Cancer Society; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Swiss Re; Swiss Cancer Research foundation; Swiss Cancer League; Institut National du Cancer; La Ligue Contre le Cancer; Rossy Family Foundation; US National Cancer Institute; and the Susan G Komen Foundation

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis in children according to atopic status: A retrospective cohort in northeast of France

International audienceIntroduction: Most children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) are atopic, but the impact of atopy on the remission and development of EoE is still unclear. The aim of our study was to determine the impact of atopy on remission of EoE and to describe allergy tests and the choice of treatment for a cohort of EoE children in France.Methods: All children diagnosed with EoE between January 2013 and June 2018 in the five pediatric centers in the northeast of France were included. Children were divided into two groups according to personal atopic disorders. Histological remission was defined on the basis of an eosinophilic count below 15 eosinophils per high-power field.Results: Among the 49 children included, 38 (78%) were atopic. Allergy tests were performed for 45 children (92%). Rates of sensitization were similar in both groups: 64% had food sensitization and 64% had aeroallergen sensitization. The most commonly attempted first-line therapy was with proton pump inhibitors (63%), followed by swallowed topical steroids (STS) (18%). First-line therapy was not associated with atopic status (P=0.88). Atopic children had a nonsignificant tendency for a higher remission rate after STS (55% vs. 0%, P=0.24) and a higher global remission rate (54% vs. 33%, P=0.18) compared with non-atopic children.Conclusion: Allergy testing is relevant in the majority of children with EoE whether or not they have atopic disorders. Atopy seems to be associated with better response to STS. Further studies are needed to determine whether atopic status determines histological response

Satisfaction précoce vis-à-vis des soins ambulatoires chez des patients dépendants aux substances psychoactives

International audienc

Cluster analysis for the identification of clinical phenotypes among antiphospholipid antibody-positive patients from the APS ACTION Registry

Objective: This study aimed to use cluster analysis (CA) to identify different clinical phenotypes among antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL)-positive patients. Methods: The Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) Registry includes persistently positive aPL of any isotype based on the Sydney antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria. We performed CA on the baseline characteristics collected retrospectively at the time of the registry entry of the first 500 patients included in the registry. A total of 30 clinical data points were included in the primary CA to cover the broad spectrum of aPL-positive patients. Results: A total of 497 patients from international centres were analysed, resulting in three main exclusive clusters: (a) female patients with no other autoimmune diseases but with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and triple-aPL positivity; (b) female patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, VTE, aPL nephropathy, thrombocytopaenia, haemolytic anaemia and a positive lupus anticoagulant test; and (c) older men with arterial thrombosis, heart valve disease, livedo, skin ulcers, neurological manifestations and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Conclusions: Based on our hierarchical cluster analysis, we identified different clinical phenotypes of aPL-positive patients discriminated by aPL profile, lupus or CVD risk factors. Our results, while supporting the heterogeneity of aPL-positive patients, also provide a foundation to understand disease mechanisms, create new approaches for APS classification and ultimately develop new management approaches. © The Author(s) 2020