Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Finding Waldo: The Evolving Paradigm of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA)—Guided Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Assessment in Colorectal Cancer (CRC)

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), the tumor-derived cell-free DNA fragments in the bloodstream carrying tumor-specific genetic and epigenetic alterations, represents an emerging novel tool for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in patients with resected colorectal cancer (CRC). For many decades, precise risk-stratification following curative-intent colorectal surgery has remained an enduring challenge. The current risk stratification strategy relies on clinicopathologic characteristics of the tumors that lacks precision and results in over-and undertreatment in a significant proportion of patients. Consequently, a biomarker that can reliably identify patients harboring MRD would be of critical importance in refining patient selection for adjuvant therapy. Several prospective cohort studies have provided compelling data suggesting that ctDNA could be a robust biomarker for MRD that outperforms all existing clinicopathologic criteria. Numerous clinical trials are currently underway to validate the ctDNA-guided MRD assessment and adjuvant treatment strategies. Once validated, the ctDNA technology will likely transform the adjuvant therapy paradigm of colorectal cancer, supporting ctDNA-guided treatment escalation and de-escalation. The current article presents a comprehensive overview of the published studies supporting the utility of ctDNA for MRD assessment in patients with CRC. We also discuss ongoing ctDNA-guided adjuvant clinical trials that will likely shape future adjuvant therapy strategies for patients with CRC

Ductal carcinoma in situ: knowledge of associated risks and prognosis among Latina and non-Latina white women

While not itself life-threatening, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) can progress to invasive disease if untreated, and confers an increased risk of future breast cancer. We investigated knowledge of DCIS among a cohort of English- and Spanish-speaking Latina and English-speaking non-Latina white women previously treated for DCIS. We examined knowledge of DCIS with four true/false statements about risk of invasive disease, breast cancer recurrence, and prognosis. For each knowledge statement, we modeled the odds of a correct answer by language-ethnicity (English-speaking Latinas, Spanish-speaking Latinas, and English-speaking whites) adjusting for demographics, health history, and treatment factors. Of 710 participants, 52 % were English-speaking whites, 21 % English-speaking Latinas, and 27 % Spanish-speaking Latinas. Less than half (41 %) of participants were aware that DCIS is not life-threatening and only 32 % knew that surgical treatment choice does not impact mortality; whereas two-thirds (67 %) understood that DCIS confers increased risk of future breast cancer, and almost all (92 %) knew that DCIS, if untreated, could become invasive. Only three Spanish-speakers used professional interpreters during discussions with their physicians. In adjusted analyses, compared to English-speaking whites, both English- and Spanish-speaking Latinas had significantly lower odds of knowing that DCIS was not life-threatening (OR, 95 % CI 0.6, 0.4-0.9 and 0.5, 0.3-0.9, respectively). In contrast, Spanish-speaking Latinas had a twofold higher odds of knowing that DCIS increases risk of future breast cancer (OR, 95 % CI 2.6, 1.6-4.4), but English-speaking Latinas were no different from English-speaking whites. Our data suggest that physicians are more successful at conveying the risks conferred by DCIS than the nuances of DCIS as a non-life-threatening diagnosis. This uneven communication is most marked for Spanish-speaking Latinas. In addition to the use of professional interpreters, efforts to create culturally and linguistically standardized information could improve knowledge and engagement in informed decision making for all DCIS patients

Oncologists' Selection of Genetic and Molecular Testing in the Evolving Landscape of Stage II Colorectal Cancer.

PurposeLittle is known about the roles of genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening in the formulation of predictive and prognostic assessments for patients with stage II colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsFrom 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium and evaluated oncologists' selection of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins, germline testing for MMR genes, BRAF and KRAS mutation analysis, and Oncotype DX in stage II CRC. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three vignettes that varied by strength of CRC family history. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with test selection.ResultsAmong 327 oncologists, MSI and/or IHC for MMR proteins were most frequently selected (n = 205; 64%), with 82% versus 53% choosing MSI/IHC testing in patients with strong versus no CRC family history, respectively (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.87; 95% CI, 2.07 to 7.22). KRAS and Oncotype DX testing were chosen by 24% and 38% of oncologists, respectively. Graduates of non-US and Canadian medical schools and physicians compensated by fee-for-service or on the basis of productivity were more likely to choose KRAS testing versus those receiving salaries not on the basis of productivity (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.99; and OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.66, respectively). Fee-for-service or productivity-based salaries were also associated with increased odds of Oncotype DX testing (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.55).ConclusionAmong surveyed oncologists, we found undertesting and overtesting related to genetic and molecular testing and Lynch syndrome screening for patients with stage II CRC,highlighting the need for improved implementation, targeted education, and evaluation of organizational and financial arrangements to promote the appropriate use of such tests

Medical Oncologists’ Experiences in Using Genomic Testing for Lung and Colorectal Cancer Care

Purpose: Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice. Patients and Methods: In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non–guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use. Results: Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non–guideline-endorsed tests (eg, OncotypeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05). Conclusion: Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests

MAVERICC, a Randomized, Biomarker-stratified, Phase II Study of mFOLFOX6-Bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI-Bevacizumab as First-line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal CancerPhase II study of mFOLFOX6-BV vs. FOLFIRI-BV in mCRC

PurposeMAVERICC compared the efficacy and safety of modified leucovorin/5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab (mFOLFOX6-BV) with leucovorin/5-fluorouracil/irinotecan plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI-BV) in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).Patients and Methods: MAVERICC was a global, randomized, open-label, phase II study. Primary objectives were to assess associations between (i) excision repair cross-complementing 1 (ERCC1) expression with progression-free survival (PFS), and (ii) plasma VEGF A (VEGF-A) with PFS in patients with previously untreated mCRC receiving mFOLFOX6-BV or FOLFIRI-BV. Before randomization, patients were stratified by tumoral ERCC1/β-actin mRNA expression level and region.ResultsOf 376 enrolled patients, 188 each received mFOLFOX6-BV and FOLFIRI-BV. PFS and overall survival (OS) were comparable between FOLFIRI-BV and mFOLFOX6-BV, with numerically higher PFS [HR = 0.79; 95% CI (confidence interval): 0.61-1.01; P = 0.06] and OS (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.56-1.04; P = 0.09) observed for FOLFIRI-BV. In the high ERCC1 subgroup, PFS and OS were comparable between treatment groups (PFS, HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.56-1.26; P = 0.40; OS, HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.51-1.26; P = 0.33). Across treatment groups, high plasma VEGF-A levels (&gt;5.1 pg/mL) were observed with shorter PFS (HR = 1.19; 95% CI: 0.93-1.53; P = 0.17) and significantly shorter OS (HR = 1.64; 95% CI: 1.20-2.24; P &lt; 0.01) versus low levels (≤5.1 pg/mL). Safety findings for FOLFIRI-BV or mFOLFOX6-BV were comparable with those reported previously.ConclusionsFirst-line FOLFIRI-BV and mFOLFOX6-BV had comparable PFS and OS, similar to results in patients with high baseline tumor ERCC1 levels. There were no new safety signals with these bevacizumab-containing regimens