Pleural mesothelioma incidence in Europe:Evidence of some deceleration in the increasing trends

Objective: To summarize the geographical and temporal variations in incidence of pleural mesothelioma in Europe, using the extensive data available from European general cancer registries, and consider these in light of recent trends in asbestos extraction, use and import in European countries. Material and methods: The data were extracted from the European Cancer Incidence and Mortality database (EUROCIM). The inclusion criteria was acceptance in Volume VII of Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Truncated age-standardized rates per 100,000 for the ages 40-74 were used to summarise recent geographical variations. Standardized rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the periods 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 were compared to assess geographical variations in risk. To investigate changes in the magnitude of most recent trends, regression models fitted to the latest available 10-year period (1988-1997) were compared with trends in the previous decade. Fitted rates in younger (40-64) and older adults (65-74) in the most recent period were also compared. Results: There was a great deal of geographical variation in the risk of mesothelioma, annual rates ranging from around 8 per 100,000 in Scotland, England and The Netherlands, to lower than 1 per 100,000 in Spain (0.96), Estonia (0.85), Poland (0.85) and Yugoslavia, Vojvodina (0.56) among men. The rank of the rates for women was similar to that observed for men, although rates were considerably lower. Between 1978 and 1987, rates in men significantly increased in all countries (excepting Denmark). In the following 10 years, there was a deceleration in trend, and a significant increase was detectable only in England and France. In addition, the magnitude of recent trends in younger men was generally lower than those estimated for older men, in both national and regional cancer registry settings. Conclusions: While mesothelioma incidence rates are still rising in Europe, a deceleration has started in some countries. A decrease may begin in the next few years in certain European populations considering the deceleration of observed trends in mesothelioma and asbestos exposure, as well as the recent ban on its use

Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet - a population-based study

Background Rare cancers pose challenges for diagnosis, treatments, and clinical decision making. Information about rare cancers is scant. The RARECARE project defined rare cancers as those with an annual incidence of less than six per 100 000 people in European Union (EU). We updated the estimates of the burden of rare cancers in Europe, their time trends in incidence and survival, and provide information about centralisation of treatments in seven European countries. Methods We analysed data from 94 cancer registries for more than 2 million rare cancer diagnoses, to estimate European incidence and survival in 2000–07 and the corresponding time trends during 1995–2007. Incidence was calculated as the number of new cases divided by the corresponding total person-years in the population. 5-year relative survival was calculated by the Ederer-2 method. Seven registries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the Navarra region in Spain) provided additional data for hospitals treating about 220 000 cases diagnosed in 2000–07. We also calculated hospital volume admission as the number of treatments provided by each hospital rare cancer group sharing the same referral pattern. Findings Rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the EU during 2000–07. The overall incidence rose annually by 0.5% (99·8% CI 0·3–0·8). 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers was 48·5% (95% CI 48·4 to 48·6), compared with 63·4% (95% CI 63·3 to 63·4) for all common cancers. 5-year relative survival increased (overall 2·9%, 95% CI 2·7 to 3·2), from 1999–2001 to 2007–09, and for most rare cancers, with the largest increases for haematological tumours and sarcomas. The amount of centralisation of rare cancer treatment varied widely between cancers and between countries. The Netherlands and Slovenia had the highest treatment volumes. Interpretation Our study benefits from the largest pool of population-based registries to estimate incidence and survival of about 200 rare cancers. Incidence trends can be explained by changes in known risk factors, improved diagnosis, and registration problems. Survival could be improved by early diagnosis, new treatments, and improved case management. The centralisation of treatment could be improved in the seven European countries we studied. Funding The European Commission (Chafea)

Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet—a population-based study

Background Rare cancers pose challenges for diagnosis, treatments, and clinical decision making. Information about rare cancers is scant. The RARECARE project defined rare cancers as those with an annual incidence of less than six per 100 000 people in European Union (EU). We updated the estimates of the burden of rare cancers in Europe, their time trends in incidence and survival, and provide information about centralisation of treatments in seven European countries. Methods We analysed data from 94 cancer registries for more than 2 million rare cancer diagnoses, to estimate European incidence and survival in 2000–07 and the corresponding time trends during 1995–2007. Incidence was calculated as the number of new cases divided by the corresponding total person-years in the population. 5-year relative survival was calculated by the Ederer-2 method. Seven registries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the Navarra region in Spain) provided additional data for hospitals treating about 220 000 cases diagnosed in 2000–07. We also calculated hospital volume admission as the number of treatments provided by each hospital rare cancer group sharing the same referral pattern. Findings Rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the EU during 2000–07. The overall incidence rose annually by 0.5% (99·8% CI 0·3–0·8). 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers was 48·5% (95% CI 48·4 to 48·6), compared with 63·4% (95% CI 63·3 to 63·4) for all common cancers. 5-year relative survival increased (overall 2·9%, 95% CI 2·7 to 3·2), from 1999–2001 to 2007–09, and for most rare cancers, with the largest increases for haematological tumours and sarcomas. The amount of centralisation of rare cancer treatment varied widely between cancers and between countries. The Netherlands and Slovenia had the highest treatment volumes. Interpretation Our study benefits from the largest pool of population-based registries to estimate incidence and survival of about 200 rare cancers. Incidence trends can be explained by changes in known risk factors, improved diagnosis, and registration problems. Survival could be improved by early diagnosis, new treatments, and improved case management. The centralisation of treatment could be improved in the seven European countries we studied. Funding The European Commission (Chafea)

Reduced Cancer Incidence in Huntington's Disease: Analysis in the Registry Study

Background: People with Huntington's disease (HD) have been observed to have lower rates of cancers. Objective: To investigate the relationship between age of onset of HD, CAG repeat length, and cancer diagnosis. Methods: Data were obtained from the European Huntington's disease network REGISTRY study for 6540 subjects. Population cancer incidence was ascertained from the GLOBOCAN database to obtain standardised incidence ratios of cancers in the REGISTRY subjects. Results: 173/6528 HD REGISTRY subjects had had a cancer diagnosis. The age-standardised incidence rate of all cancers in the REGISTRY HD population was 0.26 (CI 0.22-0.30). Individual cancers showed a lower age-standardised incidence rate compared with the control population with prostate and colorectal cancers showing the lowest rates. There was no effect of CAG length on the likelihood of cancer, but a cancer diagnosis within the last year was associated with a greatly increased rate of HD onset (Hazard Ratio 18.94, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Cancer is less common than expected in the HD population, confirming previous reports. However, this does not appear to be related to CAG length in HTT. A recent diagnosis of cancer increases the risk of HD onset at any age, likely due to increased investigation following a cancer diagnosis