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

Dry Season Rice Yield Responses to Nitrogen Fertilizer in Central Myanmar

Rice crop yields in central Myanmar are considered to be relatively low due to inadequate applications of fertilizer, and particularly of nitrogen (N). In this study, replicated field experiments were conducted at two sites, Taungoo and Yezin, in Central Myanmar to determine the crop yield responses to N fertilizer for dry season irrigated rice in 2017. The two field experiments were identical in design and conducted at the same time. The experiments had a randomized complete block design with 3 replicates of 8 treatments. The 8 treatments included 6 rates of N fertilizer (0, 30, 77.6, 100, 130, and 160 kg N/ha), applied as two split surface-broadcast applications at 10 days after transplant (10DAT) and at crop panicle initiation (PI) in accordance with local farmer practice. In addition a urea deep placement (UDP) treatment with placement of 2.7 g urea briquettes at IFDC-recommended spacing and soil depth at a N rate of 77.6 kg N/ha was included, as well as a nil input control. All treatments except for the nil input control received basal applications of P, K, S, and Zn. Mean grain yields at Taungoo ranged from 3.54 t/ha (0 kg N/ha) to 5.24 t/ha (160 kg N/ha) whilst at Yezin they ranged from 6.78 t/ha (0 kg N/ha) to 8.15 t/ha (130 kg N/ha). The Taungoo site may represent a typical low-fertility farm site whereas the Yezin site had a more fertile soil. The 77.6 kg N/ha application rate was found to result in a 33% increase (i.e. +1.18 t/ha) in grain yield (P<0.05) at the Taungoo site and a 12 % increase (i.e. + 0.84 t/ha) at the Yezin site (P<0.05) indicating benefits from this N fertilizer rate, depending on economic analysis. At the Taungoo site the UDP treatment (77.6 kg N/ha) produced yields consistently higher than the comparable 77.6 kg N/ha surface broadcast treatment, with a UDP mean yield of 5.23 vs 4.72 t/ha for surface broadcast. However, analysis of variance (ANOVA) found this not to be significant at P=0.05, with a t-test estimating P=0.054 for this comparison. This is sufficient to encourage further research on UDP in this environment. Yield response curves were derived for N fertilizer applications from the experimental data from the two experiment sites. The Taungoo site yield response curve for N was thought to be more applicable to the general soil fertility levels of rice farms in central Myanmar. This paper presents the first results from these experiments which will be expanded on as the full dataset including soil and plant analysis is obtained

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020

Main recommendations1. ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.2. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.3. When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation. Very low quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.4. Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.5. ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.6. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting. Very low quality evidence.7. ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance. Very low quality evidence.8. ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9. ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp >= 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE. Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6-9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Source and scopeThis is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence