Lower incidence rates but thicker melanomas in Eastern Europe before 1992: A comparison with Western Europe

The objective of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of melanoma across Europe with regard to Breslow thickness and body-site distribution. Incidence data from Cancer Incidence in 5 Continents and the EUROCARE-melanoma database were used: 28 117 melanoma cases from 20 cancer registries in 12 European countries, diagnosed between 1978 and 1992. Regression analysis and general linear modelling were used to analyse the data. Melanomas in Eastern Europe were on average 1.4 mm thicker (P<0.05) than in Western Europe and appeared more often on the trunk. From 1978 to 1992, their Breslow thickness had decreased in Western but not Eastern Europe. There was a latitude gradient in incidence, with highest rates in southern regions in Eastern Europe and an inverse gradient in Western Europe, with highest rates in the North. Mortality:incidence ratios were less favourable in southern parts across Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. If Eastern European populations copy the sunbathing behaviour of the West it is likely that in the near future a higher melanoma incidence can be expected there

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)

EUROCARE-4. Survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1995-1999. Results and commentary.

EUROCARE-4 analysed about three million adult cancer cases from 82 cancer registries in 23 European countries, diagnosed in 1995-1999 and followed to December 2003. For each cancer site, the mean European area-weighted observed and relative survival at 1-, 3-, and 5-years by age and sex are presented. Country-specific 1- and 5-year relative survival is also shown, together with 5-year relative survival conditional to surviving 1-year. Within-country variation in survival is analysed for selected cancers. Survival for most solid cancers, whose prognosis depends largely on stage at diagnosis (breast, colorectum, stomach, skin melanoma), was highest in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Iceland, lower in the UK and Denmark, and lowest in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovenia. France, Switzerland and Italy generally had high survival, slightly below that in the northern countries. There were between-region differences in the survival for haematologic malignancies, possibly due to differences in the availability of effective treatments. Survival of elderly patients was low probably due to advanced stage at diagnosis, comorbidities, difficult access or lack of availability of appropriate care. For all cancers, 5-year survival conditional to surviving 1-year was higher and varied less with region, than the overall relative survival

Survival trends in European cancer patients diagnosed from 1988 to 1999.

We analysed data from 49 cancer registries in 18 European countries over the period 1988-1999 to delineate time trends in cancer survival. Survival increased in Europe over the study period for all cancer sites that were considered. There were major survival increases in 5 year age-adjusted relative survival for prostate (from 58% to 79%), colon and rectum (from 48% to 54% men and women), and breast (from 74% to 83%). Improvements were also significant for stomach (from 22% to 24%), male larynx (from 62% to 64%), skin melanoma (from 78% to 83%), Hodgkin disease (from 77% to 83%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (from 49% to 56%), leukaemias (from 37% to 42%), and for all cancers combined (from 34% to 39% in men, and from 52% to 59% in women). Survival did not change significantly for female larynx, lung, cervix or ovary. The largest increases in survival typically occurred in countries with the lowest survival, and contributed to the overall reduction of survival disparities across Europe over the study period. Differences in the extent of PSA testing and mammographic screening, and increasing use of colonoscopy and faecal blood testing together with improving cancer care are probably the major underlying reasons for the improvements in survival for cancers of prostate, breast, colon and rectum. The marked survival improvements in countries with poor survival may indicate that these countries have made efforts to adopt the new diagnostic procedures and the standardised therapeutic protocols in use in more affluent countries

The cure of cancer: a European perspective.

Cancer survival analyses based on cancer registry data do not provide direct information on the main aim of cancer treatment, the cure of the patient. In fact, classic survival indicators do not distinguish between patients who are cured, and patients who will die of their disease and in whom prolongation of survival is the main objective of treatment. In this study, we applied parametric cure models to the cancer incidence and follow-up data provided by 49 EUROCARE-4 (European Cancer Registry-based study, fourth edition) cancer registries, with the aims of providing additional insights into the survival of European cancer patients diagnosed from 1988 to 1999, and of investigating between-population differences. Between-country estimates the proportion of cured patients varied from about 4-13% for lung cancer, from 9% to 30% for stomach cancer, from 25% to 49% for colon and rectum cancer, and from 55% to 73% for breast cancer. For all cancers combined, estimates varied between 21% and 47% in men, and 38% and 59% in women and were influenced by the distribution of cases by cancer site. Countries with high proportions of cured and long fatal case survival times for all cancers combined were characterised by generally favourable case mix. For the European pool of cases both the proportion of cured and the survival time of fatal cases were associated with age, and increased from the early to the latest diagnosis period. The increases over time in the proportions of Europeans estimated cured of lung, stomach and colon and rectum cancers are noteworthy and suggest genuine progress in cancer control. The proportion of cured of all cancers combined is a useful general indicator of cancer control as it reflects progress in diagnosis and treatment, as well as success in the prevention of rapidly fatal cancers

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

Epidemiology of rare cancers and inequalities in oncologic outcomes

Rare cancers epidemiology is better known compared to the other rare diseases. Thanks to the long history of the European population-based cancer registries and to the EUROCARE huge database, the burden of rare cancers has been estimated the European (EU28) population. A considerable fraction of all cancers is represented by rare cancers (24%). They are a heterogeneous group of diseases, but they share similar problems: uncertainty of diagnosis, lack of therapies, poor research opportunities, difficulties in clinical trials, lack of expertise and of centres of reference. This paper analyses the major epidemiological indicators of frequency (incidence and prevalence) and outcome (5-year survival) of all rare cancers combined and of selected rare cancers that will be in depth treated in this monographic issue. Source of the results is the RARECAREnet search tool, a database publicly available. Disparities both in incidence and survival, and consequently in prevalence of rare cancers were reported across European countries. Major differences were shown in outcome: 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers together, adjusted by age and case-mix, varied from 55% or more (Italy, Germany, Belgium and Iceland) and less than 40% (Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia). Similarly, for all the analyzed rare cancers, a large survival gap was observed between the Eastern and the Nordic and Central European regions. Dramatic geographical variations were assessed for curable cancers like testicular and non epithelial ovarian cancers. Geographical difference in the annual age-adjusted incidence rates for all rare cancers together varied between &gt;140 per 100,000 (Italy, Scotland, France, Germany, and Switzerland) and &lt;100 (Finland, Portugal, Malta, and Poland). Prevalence, the major indicator of public health resources needs, was about 7–8 times larger than incidence. Most of rare cancers require complex surgical treatment, thus a multidisciplinary approach is essential and treatment should be provided in centres of expertise and/or in networks including expert centres. Networking is the most appropriate answer to the issues pertaining to rare cancers. Actually, in Europe, an opportunity to improve outcome and reduce disparities is provided by the creation of the European Reference Networks for rare diseases (ERNs). The Joint Action of rare cancers (JARC) is a major European initiative aimed to support the mission of the ERNs. The role of population based cancer registries still remains crucial to describe rare cancers management and outcome in the real word and to evaluate progresses made at the country and at the European level

Mesothelioma and thymic tumors: Treatment challenges in (outside) a network setting

The management of patients with mesothelioma and thymic malignancy requires continuous multidisciplinary expertise at any step of the disease. A dramatic improvement in our knowledge has occurred in the last few years, through the development of databases, translational research programs, and clinical trials. Access to innovative strategies represents a major challenge, as there is a lack of funding for clinical research in rare cancers and their rarity precludes the design of robust clinical trials that could lead to specific approval of drugs. In this context, patient-centered initiatives, such as the establishment of dedicated networks, are warranted. International societies, such as IMIG (International Mesothelioma Interest Group) and ITMIG (International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group) provide infrastructure for global collaboration, and there are many advantages to having strong regional groups working on the same issues. There may be regional differences in risk factors, susceptibility, management and outcomes. The ability to address questions both regionally as well as globally is ideal to develop a full understanding of mesothelioma and thymic malignancies. In Europe, through the integration of national networks with EURACAN, the collaboration with academic societies and international groups, the development of networks in thoracic oncology provides multiplex integration of clinical care and research, ultimately ensuring equal access to high quality care to all patients, with the opportunity of conducting high level clinical and translational research projects