Evaluation of the Victorian Healthy Homes Program: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of the Victorian Healthy Homes Program (VHHP) will generate evidence about the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of home upgrades to improve thermal comfort, reduce energy use and produce health and economic benefits to vulnerable households in Victoria, Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The VHHP evaluation will use a staggered, parallel group clustered randomised controlled trial to test the home energy intervention in 1000 households. All households will receive the intervention either before (intervention group) or after (control group) winter (defined as 22 June to 21 September). The trial spans three winters with differing numbers of households in each cohort. The primary outcome is the mean difference in indoor average daily temperature between intervention and control households during the winter period. Secondary outcomes include household energy consumption and residential energy efficiency, self-reported respiratory symptoms, health-related quality of life, healthcare utilisation, absences from school/work and self-reported conditions within the home. Linear and logistic regression will be used to analyse the primary and secondary outcomes, controlling for clustering of households by area and the possible confounders of year and timing of intervention, to compare the treatment and control groups over the winter period. Economic evaluation will include a cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from Victorian Department of Human Services Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number: 04/17), University of Technology Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number: ETH18-2273) and Australian Government Department of Veterans Affairs. Study results will be disseminated in a final report and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618000160235

The histology of ovarian cancer: worldwide distribution and implications for international survival comparisons (CONCORD-2)

Objective Ovarian cancers comprise several histologically distinct tumour groups with widely different prognosis. We aimed to describe the worldwide distribution of ovarian cancer histology and to understand what role this may play in international variation in survival. Methods The CONCORD programme is the largest population-based study of global trends in cancer survival. Data on 681,759 women diagnosed during 1995â\u80\u932009 with cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, peritoneum and retroperitonum in 51 countries were included. We categorised ovarian tumours into six histological groups, and explored the worldwide distribution of histology. Results During 2005â\u80\u932009, type II epithelial tumours were the most common. The proportion was much higher in Oceania (73.1%), North America (73.0%) and Europe (72.6%) than in Central and South America (65.7%) and Asia (56.1%). By contrast, type I epithelial tumours were more common in Asia (32.5%), compared with only 19.4% in North America. From 1995 to 2009, the proportion of type II epithelial tumours increased from 68.6% to 71.1%, while the proportion of type I epithelial tumours fell from 23.8% to 21.2%. The proportions of germ cell tumours, sex cord-stromal tumours, other specific non-epithelial tumours and tumours of non-specific morphology all remained stable over time. Conclusions The distribution of ovarian cancer histology varies widely worldwide. Type I epithelial, germ cell and sex cord-stromal tumours are generally associated with higher survival than type II tumours, so the proportion of these tumours may influence survival estimates for all ovarian cancers combined. The distribution of histological groups should be considered when comparing survival between countries and regions

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

Worldwide comparison of survival from childhood leukaemia for 1995–2009, by subtype, age, and sex (CONCORD-2): a population-based study of individual data for 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries

Background Global inequalities in access to health care are reflected in differences in cancer survival. The CONCORD programme was designed to assess worldwide differences and trends in population-based cancer survival. In this population-based study, we aimed to estimate survival inequalities globally for several subtypes of childhood leukaemia. Methods Cancer registries participating in CONCORD were asked to submit tumour registrations for all children aged 0-14 years who were diagnosed with leukaemia between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2009, and followed up until Dec 31, 2009. Haematological malignancies were defined by morphology codes in the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third revision. We excluded data from registries from which the data were judged to be less reliable, or included only lymphomas, and data from countries in which data for fewer than ten children were available for analysis. We also excluded records because of a missing date of birth, diagnosis, or last known vital status. We estimated 5-year net survival (ie, the probability of surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis, after controlling for deaths from other causes [background mortality]) for children by calendar period of diagnosis (1995-99, 2000-04, and 2005-09), sex, and age at diagnosis (< 1, 1-4, 5-9, and 10-14 years, inclusive) using appropriate life tables. We estimated age-standardised net survival for international comparison of survival trends for precursor-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Findings We analysed data from 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries. During 1995-99, 5-year agestandardised net survival for all lymphoid leukaemias combined ranged from 10.6% (95% CI 3.1-18.2) in the Chinese registries to 86.8% (81.6-92.0) in Austria. International differences in 5-year survival for childhood leukaemia were still large as recently as 2005-09, when age-standardised survival for lymphoid leukaemias ranged from 52.4% (95% CI 42.8-61.9) in Cali, Colombia, to 91.6% (89.5-93.6) in the German registries, and for AML ranged from 33.3% (18.9-47.7) in Bulgaria to 78.2% (72.0-84.3) in German registries. Survival from precursor-cell ALL was very close to that of all lymphoid leukaemias combined, with similar variation. In most countries, survival from AML improved more than survival from ALL between 2000-04 and 2005-09. Survival for each type of leukaemia varied markedly with age: survival was highest for children aged 1-4 and 5-9 years, and lowest for infants (younger than 1 year). There was no systematic difference in survival between boys and girls. Interpretation Global inequalities in survival from childhood leukaemia have narrowed with time but remain very wide for both ALL and AML. These results provide useful information for health policy makers on the effectiveness of health-care systems and for cancer policy makers to reduce inequalities in childhood survival

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010–19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

BACKGROUND: Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. METHODS: The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk–outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. FINDINGS: Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4·45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4·01–4·94) deaths and 105 million (95·0–116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44·4% (41·3–48·4) of all cancer deaths and 42·0% (39·1–45·6) of all DALYs. There were 2·88 million (2·60–3·18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50·6% [47·8–54·1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1·58 million (1·36–1·84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36·3% [32·5–41·3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20·4% (12·6–28·4) and DALYs by 16·8% (8·8–25·0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34·7% [27·9–42·8] and 33·3% [25·8–42·0]). INTERPRETATION: The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.Funding/Support: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. Dr Aljunid acknowledges the Department of Health Policy and Management of Kuwait University and the International Centre for Casemix and Clinical Coding, National University of Malaysia for the approval and support to participate in this research project. Dr Bhaskar acknowledges institutional support from the NSW Ministry of Health and NSW Health Pathology. Dr Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr Braithwaite acknowledges funding from the National Institutes of Health/ National Cancer Institute. Dr Conde acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council ERC Starting Grant agreement No 848325. Dr Costa acknowledges her grant (SFRH/BHD/110001/2015), received by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, IP under the Norma Transitória grant DL57/2016/CP1334/CT0006. Dr Ghith acknowledges support from a grant from Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0021856). Dr Glasbey is supported by a National Institute of Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship. Dr Vivek Kumar Gupta acknowledges funding support from National Health and Medical Research Council Australia. Dr Haque thanks Jazan University, Saudi Arabia for providing access to the Saudi Digital Library for this research study. Drs Herteliu, Pana, and Ausloos are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Dr Hugo received support from the Higher Education Improvement Coordination of the Brazilian Ministry of Education for a sabbatical period at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, between September 2019 and August 2020. Dr Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam acknowledges funding by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Fellowship and National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Fellowship. Dr Jakovljevic acknowledges support through grant OI 175014 of the Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. Dr Katikireddi acknowledges funding from a NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). Dr Md Nuruzzaman Khan acknowledges the support of Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, Bangladesh. Dr Yun Jin Kim was supported by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004). Dr Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support from Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación, which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Dr Loureiro was supported by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia under the Scientific Employment Stimulus–Institutional Call (CEECINST/00049/2018). Dr Molokhia is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center at Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Dr Moosavi appreciates NIGEB's support. Dr Pati acknowledges support from the SIAN Institute, Association for Biodiversity Conservation & Research. Dr Rakovac acknowledges a grant from the government of the Russian Federation in the context of World Health Organization Noncommunicable Diseases Office. Dr Samy was supported by a fellowship from the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. Dr Sheikh acknowledges support from Health Data Research UK. Drs Adithi Shetty and Unnikrishnan acknowledge support given by Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Pavanchand H. Shetty acknowledges Manipal Academy of Higher Education for their research support. Dr Diego Augusto Santos Silva was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil Finance Code 001 and is supported in part by CNPq (302028/2018-8). Dr Zhu acknowledges the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP210042

Patterns in the incidence, mortality and survival of malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, New South Wales, 1972–2009

Abstract Introduction: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) are often grouped together in descriptive epidemiological analyses, resulting in limited understanding of epidemiological patterns for these tumour types. Methods: We studied patterns in the incidence, mortality and survival of people diagnosed with MPM (n=4,076) and MPeM (n=293) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, 1972–2009. We also calculated 5‐year relative survival for people diagnosed 1972–2006 followed up to 2007. We assessed patterns for each tumour type and histological subtype and, where possible, by combination of these categories. Results: Annual MPM cases steadily increased over time (n=208 in 2009). There was an increasing trend in the MPM age‐standardised incidence rate from 1972 up to 1994. This rate increase has levelled off in the past 10 years. Since 1999, 11 cases of MPeM were diagnosed each year, on average. Five‐year relative survival remained stable for MPM and MPeM. However, 5‐year relative survival in 2002–2006 was substantially higher for people with MPM epithelioid histological subtype (11.7% [95%CI 6.8–18.2%]) compared to all other non‐epithelioid histological subtypes (6.9% [95%CI 5.0–9.1%]), a 70% difference. Survival was also greater for women with MPM (13.4% [95%CI 8.5–19.4%]) compared to men (7.0% [95%CI 5.1–9.2%]). Interpretation: MPM incidence rates have stabilised since the mid‐1990s, suggesting that maximum incidence levels have been reached. When more up‐to‐date data are available, survival estimates should be reanalysed to include people likely to benefit from the wide introduction of combination chemotherapy in 2007, including pemetrexed