[Incidence and mortality of central nervous system tumors in France: trends over the period 1978-2000 and influence of registration practices on results]

International audienceBACKGROUND: In France, cancer incidence figures are produced by cancer registries covering only 13.5% to 16% of the whole population of the country. Thus, to produce national figures, estimates have to be computed. Registration disparities between registries concerning tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS) could have biased these estimates. METHODS: National estimates are based on modelling of the incidence/mortality ratio. The most recent estimations for year 2000 were calculated by the French Cancer Registry Network (FRANCIM) and the department of biostatistics of Lyon University Hospital. Since benign tumors are not recorded in some cancer registries, a new estimate of the incidence of CNS tumors was produced by estimating the number of benign tumors in these registries. RESULTS: In 2000 in France, the number of estimated cases of CNS tumors was 2697 in men and 2602 in women, with incidence rates (World standard) of 7.4 and 6.4 per 100,000 respectively. The incidence increased between 1978 and 2000, on an average by 2.25% per year in men and 3.01% per year in women. However, these estimates do not provide a correct picture of CNS incidence. First of all, pathological diagnoses are not performed in 3.5%-27.5% of the patients with CNS tumors registered in French registries. Second, figures for benign tumors (mainly meningiomas) were provided by only two of nine cancer registries. If benign tumors had been registered by all cancer registries, computed incidence would have increased by 12% for men and 26% for women. CONCLUSION: Incidence of CNS tumors is increasing in France, as in many other countries. To improve comparability with other countries, French cancer registries should also collect data on benign tumors. The discrepancies observed between registries in the proportion of patients without information on histology show differences in diagnostic practices and should be the starting point for a survey on this topic

[Incidence and mortality of central nervous system tumors in France: trends over the period 1978-2000 and influence of registration practices on results]

International audienceBACKGROUND: In France, cancer incidence figures are produced by cancer registries covering only 13.5% to 16% of the whole population of the country. Thus, to produce national figures, estimates have to be computed. Registration disparities between registries concerning tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS) could have biased these estimates. METHODS: National estimates are based on modelling of the incidence/mortality ratio. The most recent estimations for year 2000 were calculated by the French Cancer Registry Network (FRANCIM) and the department of biostatistics of Lyon University Hospital. Since benign tumors are not recorded in some cancer registries, a new estimate of the incidence of CNS tumors was produced by estimating the number of benign tumors in these registries. RESULTS: In 2000 in France, the number of estimated cases of CNS tumors was 2697 in men and 2602 in women, with incidence rates (World standard) of 7.4 and 6.4 per 100,000 respectively. The incidence increased between 1978 and 2000, on an average by 2.25% per year in men and 3.01% per year in women. However, these estimates do not provide a correct picture of CNS incidence. First of all, pathological diagnoses are not performed in 3.5%-27.5% of the patients with CNS tumors registered in French registries. Second, figures for benign tumors (mainly meningiomas) were provided by only two of nine cancer registries. If benign tumors had been registered by all cancer registries, computed incidence would have increased by 12% for men and 26% for women. CONCLUSION: Incidence of CNS tumors is increasing in France, as in many other countries. To improve comparability with other countries, French cancer registries should also collect data on benign tumors. The discrepancies observed between registries in the proportion of patients without information on histology show differences in diagnostic practices and should be the starting point for a survey on this topic

Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: An overview of the randomised trials

Background: There have been many randomised trials of adjuvant tamoxifen among women with early breast cancer, and an updated overview of their results is presented. Methods: In 1995, information was sought on each woman in any randomised trial that began before 1990 of adjuvant tamoxifen versus no tamoxifen before recurrence. Information was obtained and analysed centrally on each of 37,000 women in 55 such trials, comprising about 87% of the worldwide evidence. Compared with the previous such overview, this approximately doubles the amount of evidence from trials of about 5 years of tamoxifen and, taking all trials together, on events occurring more than 5 years after randomisation. Findings: Nearly 8000 of the women had a low, or zero, level of the oestrogen-receptor protein (ER) measured in their primary tumour. Among them, the overall effects of tamoxifen appeared to be small, and subsequent analyses of recurrence and total mortality are restricted to the remaining women (18,000 with ER-positive tumours, plus nearly 12,000 more with untested tumours, of which an estimated 8000 would have been ER-positive). For trials of 1 year, 2 years, and about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen, the proportional recurrence reductions produced among these 30,000 women during about 10 years of follow-up were 21% (SD 3), 29% (SD 2), and 47% (SD 3), respectively, with a highly significant trend towards greater effect with longer treatment (χ12 = 52.0, 2p < 0.00001). The corresponding proportional mortality reductions were 12% (SD 3), 17% (SD 3), and 26% (SD 4), respectively, and again the test for trend was significant (χ12 = 8.8) 2p = 0.003). The absolute improvement in recurrence was greater during the first 5 years, whereas the improvement in survival grew steadily larger throughout the first 10 years. The proportional mortality reductions were similar for women with node-positive and node-negative disease, but the absolute mortality reductions were greater in node-positive women. In the trials of about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen the absolute improvements in 10-year survival were 10.9% (SD 2.5) for node-positive (61.4% vs 50.5% survival, 2p < 0.00001) and 5.6% (SD 1.3) for node-negative (78.9% vs 73.3% survival, 2p < 0.00001). These benefits appeared to be largely irrespective of age, menopausal status, daily tamoxifen dose (which was generally 20 mg), and of whether chemotherapy had been given to both groups. In terms of other outcomes among all women studied (ie, including those with 'ER-poor' tumours), the proportional reductions in contralateral breast cancer were 13% (SD 13), 26% (SD 9), and 47% (SD 9) in the trials of 1, 2, or about 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen. The incidence of endometrial cancer was approximately doubled in trials of 1 or 2 years of tamoxifen and approximately quadrupled in trials of 5 years of tamoxifen (although the number of cases was small and these ratios were not significantly different from each other). The absolute decrease in contralateral breast cancer was about twice as large as the absolute increase in the incidence of endometrial cancer. Tamoxifen had no apparent effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer or, after exclusion of deaths from breast or endometrial cancer, on any of the other main categories of cause of death (total nearly 2000 such deaths; overall relative risk 0.99 [SD 0.05]). Interpretation: For women with tumours that have been reliably shown to be ER-negative, adjuvant tamoxifen remains a matter for research. However, some years of adjuvant tamoxifen treatment substantially improves the 10-year survival of women with ER-positive tumours and of women whose tumours are of unknown ER status, with the proportional reductions in breast cancer recurrence and in mortality appearing to be largely unaffected by other patient characteristics or treatments.0SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Survival from rare cancer in adults: A population-based study

Backround: Rare cancers are a challenge to clinical practice, and treatment experience, even in major cancer centres to which rare cancers are usually referred, is often limited. We aimed to study the epidemiology of rare cancers in a large population of several countries. Methods: We analysed survival by age, sex, subsite, and morphology in 57 144 adults with 14 selected rare cancers diagnosed 1983-94. Variations in survival over time and between European regions were also assessed for variations in quality of care. We also estimated the adjusted relative excess risk of death for every rare cancer. Findings: Overall 5 -year relative survival was good (ie, >65%) for placental choriocarcinoma (85.4% [95% CI 81.4-89.5]), thyroid medullary carcinoma (72.4% [69.2-75.5]), ovarian germ-cell cancer (73.0% [70.0-76.0]), lung carcinoid (70.1% [67.3-72.9]), and cervical adenocarcinoma (65.5% [64.3-66.6]); intermediate (ie, 35-65%) for testicular cancer at age 65 years or older (64.0% [59.3-68.7]), sarcoma of extremities (60.0% [58.9-61.2]), digestive-system endocrine cancers (55.6% [54.9-56.3]), anal squamous-cell carcinoma (53.1% [51.5-54.8]), and uterine sarcoma (43.5% [42.0-44.9]); low for carcinoma of adrenal-gland cortex (32.7% [28.3-37.2]) and bladder squamous-cell carcinoma (20.4% [18.8-22.0]); and poor for angiosarcoma of liver (6.4% [1.8-11.0]) and mesothelioma (4.7% [4.3-5.2]). Survival was usually better for women than men and poor in those aged 75 years or older. Survival significantly improved over time for ovarian germ-cell cancer, sarcomas of extremities, digestive-system endocrine tumours, anal squamous-cell carcinoma, and angiosarcoma of liver. Survival in northern Europe was higher than in the other geographic groupings for most cancers. Interpretation: Because effective treatments are available for several of the rare cancers we assessed, further research is needed to ascertain why survival is lower in some European countries than in others, particularly in older patients. Audit of best practice for rare cancers with treatment protocols would be useful