Survival rates of familial and sporadic prostate cancer patients

Aim: To compare cancer-specific survival rates for familial and sporadic prostate cancer patients. Materials and Methods: Gleason score and age at diagnosis of familial group and sporadic group were compared by χ² and t-test. Cancer-specific survival rates were analyzed by the Kaplan — Meier method and compared by log-rank test. Statistically significant level was set at p < 0.05. Results: Among 1175 prostate cancer patients, familial group consisted of 215 (18.3%) patients, the sporadic group consisted of 960 (81.7%) patients. The familial group patient’s mean age at diagnosis (58.9 years old, 95% confidence interval (CI) 57.8–60.1) was significantly younger than that of sporadic group patients (67.2 years old, 95% CI 66.7–67.6) (p < 0.0001). Comparing Gleason score between familial group and sporadic group revealed no statistically significant difference. The analysis showed that 92% (95% CI 0.88–0.97) of familial group patients had a 10-year cancer-specific survival rates, which was a significantly better outcome than that of sporadic group with 69% (95% CI 0.60–0.78) 10-year cancer-specific survival rates (p = 0.0237). Conclusion: The study data demonstrate statistically significant difference between familial group and sporadic group concerning age and cancer-specific survival rates, but not Gleason score. Key Words: prostate cancer, hereditary, familial, survival rates

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

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

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

Predictors of loss to follow up among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus attending a private not for profit urban diabetes clinic in Uganda : a descriptive retrospective study

BACKGROUND: Although the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing in Uganda, data on loss to follow up (LTFU) of patients in care is scanty. We aimed to estimate proportions of patients LTFU and document associated factors among patients attending a private not for profit urban diabetes clinic in Uganda. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive retrospective study between March and May 2017. We reviewed 1818 out-patient medical records of adults diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus registered between July 2003 and September 2016 at St. Francis Hospital - Nsambya Diabetes clinic in Uganda. Data was extracted on: patients' registration dates, demographics, socioeconomic status, smoking, glycaemic control, type of treatment, diabetes mellitus complications and last follow-up clinic visit. LTFU was defined as missing collecting medication for six months or more from the date of last clinic visit, excluding situations of death or referral to another clinic. We used Kaplan-Meier technique to estimate time to defaulting medical care after initial registration, log-rank test to test the significance of observed differences between groups. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to determine predictors of patients' LTFU rates in hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: Between July 2003 and September 2016, one thousand eight hundred eighteen patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were followed for 4847.1 person-years. Majority of patients were female 1066/1818 (59%) and 1317/1818 (72%) had poor glycaemic control. Over the 13 years, 1690/1818 (93%) patients were LTFU, giving a LTFU rate of 34.9 patients per 100 person-years (95%CI: 33.2-36.6). LTFU was significantly higher among males, younger patients (< 45 years), smokers, patients on dual therapy, lower socioeconomic status, and those with diabetes complications like neuropathy and nephropathy. CONCLUSION: We found high proportions of patients LTFU in this diabetes clinic which warrants intervention studies targeting the identified risk factors and strengthening follow up of patients

Lancet

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the second cycle of the CONCORD programme established global surveillance of cancer survival as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems and to inform global policy on cancer control. CONCORD-3 updates the worldwide surveillance of cancer survival to 2014. METHODS: CONCORD-3 includes individual records for 37.5 million patients diagnosed with cancer during the 15-year period 2000-14. Data were provided by 322 population-based cancer registries in 71 countries and territories, 47 of which provided data with 100% population coverage. The study includes 18 cancers or groups of cancers: oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, prostate, and melanoma of the skin in adults, and brain tumours, leukaemias, and lymphomas in both adults and children. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were rectified by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS: For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. For many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries. Survival trends are generally increasing, even for some of the more lethal cancers: in some countries, survival has increased by up to 5% for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and lung. For women diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for breast cancer is now 89.5% in Australia and 90.2% in the USA, but international differences remain very wide, with levels as low as 66.1% in India. For gastrointestinal cancers, the highest levels of 5-year survival are seen in southeast Asia: in South Korea for cancers of the stomach (68.9%), colon (71.8%), and rectum (71.1%); in Japan for oesophageal cancer (36.0%); and in Taiwan for liver cancer (27.9%). By contrast, in the same world region, survival is generally lower than elsewhere for melanoma of the skin (59.9% in South Korea, 52.1% in Taiwan, and 49.6% in China), and for both lymphoid malignancies (52.5%, 50.5%, and 38.3%) and myeloid malignancies (45.9%, 33.4%, and 24.8%). For children diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ranged from 49.8% in Ecuador to 95.2% in Finland. 5-year survival from brain tumours in children is higher than for adults but the global range is very wide (from 28.9% in Brazil to nearly 80% in Sweden and Denmark). INTERPRETATION: The CONCORD programme enables timely comparisons of the overall effectiveness of health systems in providing care for 18 cancers that collectively represent 75% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide every year. It contributes to the evidence base for global policy on cancer control. Since 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has used findings from the CONCORD programme as the official benchmark of cancer survival, among their indicators of the quality of health care in 48 countries worldwide. Governments must recognise population-based cancer registries as key policy tools that can be used to evaluate both the impact of cancer prevention strategies and the effectiveness of health systems for all patients diagnosed with cancer. FUNDING: American Cancer Society; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Swiss Re; Swiss Cancer Research foundation; Swiss Cancer League; Institut National du Cancer; La Ligue Contre le Cancer; Rossy Family Foundation; US National Cancer Institute; and the Susan G Komen Foundation

International comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes: an update and extension

Aims: To update and extend a previous cross-sectional international comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Data were obtained for 520,392 children and adults with type 1 diabetes from 17 population and five clinic-based data sources in countries or regions between 2016 and 2020. Median HbA1c(IQR) and proportions of individuals with HbA1c &lt; 58 mmol/mol (&lt;7.5%), 58–74 mmol/mol (7.5–8.9%) and ≥75 mmol/mol (≥9.0%) were compared between populations for individuals aged &lt;15, 15–24 and ≥25 years. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of HbA1c &lt; 58 mmol/mol (&lt;7.5%) relative to ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%), stratified and adjusted for sex, age and data source. Where possible, changes in the proportion of individuals in each HbA1c category compared to previous estimates were calculated. Results: Median HbA1c varied from 55 to 79 mmol/mol (7.2 to 9.4%) across data sources and age groups so a pooled estimate was deemed inappropriate. OR (95% CI) for HbA1c&lt; 58 mmol/mol (&lt;7.5%) were 0.91 (0.90–0.92) for women compared to men, 1.68 (1.65–1.71) for people aged &lt;15 years and 0.81 (0.79–0.82) aged15–24 years compared to those aged ≥25 years. Differences between populations persisted after adjusting for sex, age and data source. In general, compared to our previous analysis, the proportion of people with an HbA1c &lt; 58 mmol/l (&lt;7.5%) increased and proportions of people with HbA1c≥ 75 mmol/mol (≥9.0%) decreased. Conclusions: Glycaemic control of type 1 diabetes continues to vary substantially between age groups and data sources. While some improvement over time has been observed, glycaemic control remains sub-optimal for most people with Type 1 diabetes. © 2021 Diabetes UK

International comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes: an update and extension

Aims: To update and extend a previous cross-sectional international comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Methods: Data were obtained for 520,392 children and adults with type 1 diabetes from 17 population and five clinic-based data sources in countries or regions between 2016 and 2020. Median HbA1c(IQR) and proportions of individuals with HbA1c<58mmol/mol (<7.5%), 58 – 74 mmol/mol (7.5 – 8.9%) and ≥ 75 mmol/mol (≥ 9.0%) were compared between populations for individuals aged <15, 15 – 24 and ≥ 25years. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of HbA1c< 58 mmol/mol (< 7.5%) relative to ≥ 58 mmol/mol (≥ 7.5%), stratified and adjusted for sex, age, and data source. Where possible, changes in the proportion of individuals in each HbA1c category compared to previous estimates were calculated. Results: Median HbA1c varied from 55 to 79 mmol/mol (7.2 to 9.4%) across data sources and age groups so a pooled estimate was deemed inappropriate. OR (95% CI) for HbA1c< 58 mmol/mol (<7.5 %) were 0.91 (0.90 – 0.92) for women compared to men, 1.68 (1.65 – 1.71) for people aged < 15 years and 0.81 (0.79 – 0.82) aged15 – 24 years compared to those aged ≥ 25 years. Differences between populations persisted after adjusting for sex, age, and data source. In general, compared to our previous analysis, the proportion of people with an HbA1c<58 mmol/l (<7.5%) increased and proportions of people with HbA1c≥ 75 mmol/mol (≥ 9.0%) decreased. Conclusions: Glycaemic control of type 1 diabetes continues to vary substantially between age groups and data sources. While some improvement over time has been observed, glycaemic control remains sub-optimal for most people with Type 1 diabetes