Treatment challenges in and outside a specialist network setting: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms comprise a group of rare tumours with special biology, an often indolent behaviour and particular diagnostic and therapeutic requirements. The specialized biochemical tests and radiological investigations, the complexity of surgical options and the variety of medical treatments that require individual tailoring, mandate a multidisciplinary approach that can be optimally achieved through an organized network. The present study describes currents concepts in the management of these tumours as well as an insight into the challenges of delivering the pathway in and outside a Network

Testicular germ-cell tumours and penile squamous cell carcinoma: Appropriate management makes the difference

Germ-cell tumours (GCT) of the testis and penile squamous cell carcinoma (PeSCC) are a rare and a very rare uro-genital cancers, respectively. Both tumours are well defined entities in terms of management, where specific recommendations - in the form of continuously up-to-dated guide lines-are provided. Impact of these tumour is relevant. Testicular GCT affects young, healthy men at the beginning of their adult life. PeSCC affects older men, but a proportion of these patients are young and the personal consequences of the disease may be devastating. Deviation from recommended management may be a reason of a significant prognostic worsening, as proper treatment favourably impacts on these tumours, dramatically on GCT and significantly on PeSCC. RARECAREnet data may permit to analyse how survivals may vary according to geographical areas, histology and age, leading to assume that non-homogeneous health-care resources may impact the cure and definitive outcomes. In support of this hypothesis, some epidemiologic datasets and clinical findings would indicate that survival may improve when appropriate treatments are delivered, linked to a different accessibility to the best health institutions, as a consequence of geographical, cultural and economic barriers. Finally, strong clues based on epidemiological and clinical data support the hypothesis that treatment delivered at reference centres or under the aegis of a qualified multi-institutional network is associated with a better prognosis of patients with these malignancies. The ERN EURACAN represents the best current European effort to answer this clinical need

Treatment challenges in and outside a network setting: Head and neck cancers

Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a rare disease that can affect different sites and is characterized by variable incidence and 5-year survival rates across Europe. Multiple factors need to be considered when choosing the most appropriate treatment for HNC patients, such as age, comorbidities, social issues, and especially whether to prefer surgery or radiation-based protocols. Given the complexity of this scenario, the creation of a highly specialized multidisciplinary team is recommended to guarantee the best oncological outcome and prevent or adequately treat any adverse effect. Data from literature suggest that the multidisciplinary team-based approach is beneficial for HNC patients and lead to improved survival rates. This result is likely due to improved diagnostic and staging accuracy, a more efficacious therapeutic approach and enhanced communication across disciplines. Despite the benefit of MTD, it must be noted that this approach requires considerable time, effort and financial resources and is usually more frequent in highly organized and high-volume centers. Literature data on clinical research suggest that patients treated in high-accrual centers report better treatment outcomes compared to patients treated in low-volume centers, where a lower radiotherapy-compliance and worst overall survival have been reported. There is general agreement that treatment of rare cancers such as HNC should be concentrated in high volume, specialized and multidisciplinary centers. In order to achieve this goal, the creation of international collaboration network is fundamental. The European Reference Networks for example aim to create an international virtual advisory board, whose objectives are the exchange of expertise, training, clinical collaboration and the reduction of disparities and enhancement of rationalize migration across Europe. The purpose of our work is to review all aspects and challenges in and outside this network setting planned for the management of HNC patients

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

Background: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. Methods: Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15–99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0–14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995–2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. Findings: 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005–09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15–19% in North America, and as low as 7–9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10–20% between 1995–99 and 2005–09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995–99 and 2005–09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005–09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005–09 was high (54–58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18–23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. Interpretation: International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems

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)

Survival of 86,690 patients with thyroid cancer: A population-based study in 29 European countries from EUROCARE-5

Background Incidence rates of thyroid cancer (TC) increased in several countries during the last 30 years, while mortality rates remained unchanged, raising important questions for treatment and follow-up of TC patients. This study updates population-based estimates of relative survival (RS) after TC diagnosis in Europe by sex, country, age, period and histology. Methods Data from 87 cancer registries in 29 countries were extracted from the EUROCARE-5 dataset. One- and 5-year RS were estimated using the cohort approach for 86,690 adult TC patients diagnosed in 2000–2007 and followed-up to 12/31/2008. RS trends in 1999–2007 and 10-year RS in 2005–2007 were estimated using the period approach. Results In Europe 2000–2007, 5-year RS after TC was 88% in women and 81% in men. Survival rates varied by country and were strongly correlated (Pearson ρ = 75%) with country-specific incidence rates. Five-year RS decreased with age (in women from >95% at age 15–54 to 57% at age 75+), from 98% in women and 94% in men with papillary TC to 14% in women and 12% in men with anaplastic TC. Proportion of papillary TC varied by country and increased over time, while survival rates were similar across areas and periods. In 1999–2007, 5-year RS increased by five percentage points for all TCs but only by two for papillary and by four for follicular TC. Ten-year RS in 2005–2007 was 89% in women and 79% in men. Conclusions The reported increasing TC survival trend and differences by area are mainly explained by the varying histological case-mix of cases

Reasons for low cervical cancer survival in new accession European Union countries: a EUROCARE-5 study

Purpose: With better access to early diagnosis and appropriate treatment, cervical cancer (CC) burden decreased in several European countries. In Eastern European (EE) countries, which accessed European Union in 2004, CC survival was worse than in the rest of Europe. The present study investigates CC survival differences across five European regions, considering stage at diagnosis (local, regional and metastatic), morphology (mainly squamous versus glandular tumours) and patients’ age. Methods: We analysed 101,714 CC women diagnosed in 2000–2007 and followed-up to December 2008. Age-standardised 5-year relative survival (RS) and the excess risks of cancer death in the 5 years after diagnosis were computed. Results: EE women were older and less commonly diagnosed with glandular tumours. Proportions of local stage cancers were similar across Europe, while morphology- and stage-specific RS (especially for non-metastatic disease) were lower in Eastern Europe. Adjusting for age and morphology, excess risk of local stage CC death for EE patients remained higher than that for other European women. Conclusion: Stage, age and morphology alone do not explain worse survival in Eastern Europe: less effective care may play a role, probably partly due to fewer or inadequate resources being allocated to health care in this area, compared to the rest of Europe

Survival of male genital cancers (prostate, testis and penis) in Europe 1999-2007: Results from the EUROCARE-5 study

Background We provide updated estimates of survival and survival trends of male genital tumours (prostate, testicular and penis cancers), in Europe and across European areas. Methods The complete approach was used to obtain relative survival estimates for patients diagnosed in 2000-2007, and followed up through 2008 in 29 countries. Data came from 87 cancer registries (CRs) for prostate tumours and from 86 CRs for testis and penis tumours. Relative survival time trends in 1999-2007 were estimated by the period approach. Data came from 49 CRs in 25 countries. Results We analysed 1,021,275 male genital cancer cases. Five-year relative survival was high and decreased with increasing age for all tumours considered. We found limited variation in survival between European regions with Eastern Europe countries having lower survival than the others. Survival for penile cancer patients did not improve from 1999 to 2007. Survival for testicular cancer patients remained stable at high levels since 1999. Survival for prostate cancer patients increased over time. Conclusions Treatment standardisation and centralisation for very rare diseases such as penile cancers or advanced testicular tumours should be supported. The high survival of testicular cancer makes long-term monitoring of testicular cancer survivors necessary and CRs can be an important resource. Prostate cancer patients' survival must be interpreted considering incidence and mortality data. The follow-up of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer should continue to clarify the impact of screening on prostate cancer mortality together with population based studies including information on stage and treatments

Age and case mix-standardised survival for all cancer patients in Europe 1999-2007: Results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study

Background Overall survival after cancer is frequently used when assessing a health care service's performance as a whole. It is mainly used by the public, politicians and the media, and is often dismissed by clinicians because of the heterogeneous mix of different cancers, risk factors and treatment modalities. Here we give survival details for all cancers combined in Europe, correlating it with economic variables to suggest reasons for differences. Methods We computed age and cancer site case-mix standardised relative survival for all cancers combined (ACRS) for 29 countries participating in the EUROCARE-5 project with data on more than 7.5 million cancer cases from 87 population-based cancer registries, using complete and period approach. Results Denmark, United Kingdom (UK) and Eastern European countries had lower survival than neighbouring countries. Five-year ACRS has been increasing throughout Europe, and substantial increases, between 1999-2001 and 2005-2007, have been achieved in countries where survival was lower in the past. Five-year ACRS for men and women are positively correlated with macro-economic variables like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Total National Expenditure on Health (TNEH) (R 2 about 70%). Countries with recent larger increases in GDP and TNEH had greater increases in cancer survival. Conclusions ACRS serves to compare all cancer survival in Europe taking account of the geographical variability in case-mixes. The EUROCARE-5 data on ACRS confirm previous EUROCARE findings. Survival appears to correlate with macro-economic determinants, particularly with investments in the health care system

The EUROCARE-5 study on cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: Database, quality checks and statistical analysis methods

Background Since 25 years the EUROCARE study monitors the survival of cancer patients in Europe through centralised collection, quality check and statistical analysis of population-based cancer registries (CRs) data. The European population covered by the study increased remarkably in the latest round. The study design and statistical methods were also changed to improve timeliness and comparability of survival estimates. To interpret the EUROCARE-5 results on adult cancer patients better here we assess the impact of these changes on data quality and on survival comparisons. Methods In EUROCARE-5 the survival differences by area were studied applying the complete cohort approach to data on nearly nine million cancer patients diagnosed in 2000-2007 and followed up to 2008. Survival time trends were analysed applying the period approach to data on about 10 million cancer cases diagnosed from 1995 to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Differently from EUROCARE-4, multiple primary cancers were included and relative survival was estimated with the Ederer II method. Results EUROCARE-5 covered a population of 232 million resident persons, corresponding to 50% of the 29 participating countries. The population coverage increased particularly in Eastern Europe. Cases identified from death certificate only (DCO) were on average 2.9%, range 0-12%. Microscopically confirmed cases amounted to over 85% in most CRs. Compared to previous methods, including multiple cancers and using the Ederer II estimator reduced survival estimates by 0.4 and 0.3 absolute percentage points, on average. Conclusions The increased population size and registration coverage of the EUROCARE-5 study ensures more robust and comparable estimates across European countries. This enlargement did not impact on data quality, which was generally satisfactory. Estimates may be slightly inflated in countries with high or null DCO proportions, especially for poor prognosis cancers. The updated methods improved the comparability of survival estimates between recently and long-term established registries and reduced biases due to informative censoring