Recent Changes in Breast Cancer Incidence in Spain, 1980–2004

BACKGROUND: Since the 1980s, Spain experienced two decades of sharply increasing breast cancer incidence. Declines in breast cancer incidence have recently been reported in many developed countries. We examined whether a similar downturn might have taken place in Spain in recent years. METHODS: Cases of invasive female breast cancer were drawn from all population-based Spanish cancer registries that had at least 10 years of uninterrupted registration over the period 1980-2004. Overall and age-specific changes in incidence rates were evaluated using change-point Poisson models, which allow for accurate detection and estimation of trend changes. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 80,453 incident cases of invasive breast cancer were identified. Overall age- and registry-adjusted incidence rates rose by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7% to 3.1%) annually during the 1980s and 1990s; there was a statistically significant change in this trend in 2001 (95% CI = 1998 to 2004; P value for the existence of a change point <.001), after which incidence declined annually by 3.0% (95% CI = 1.8% to 4.1%). This trend differed by age group: There was a steady increase in incidence for women younger than 45 years, an abrupt downturn in 2001 for women aged 45-64 years, and a gradual leveling off in 1995 for women aged 65 years or older. Separate analyses for registries that had at least 15 years of uninterrupted registration detected a statistically significant interruption of the previous upward trend in breast cancer incidence in provinces that had aggressive breast cancer screening programs and high screening participation rates, including Navarra (change point = 1991, P < .001), Granada (change point = 2002, P = .003), Bizkaia (change point = 1998, P < .001), Gipuzkoa (change point = 1998, P = .001), and Araba (change point = 1997, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The recent downturn in breast cancer incidence among Spanish women older than 45 years is best explained by a period effect linked to screening saturation.Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP) (AC07-005 to M.P., PM07-004 to R.P-B.) and Carlos III Institute of Health (ISCIII-CIBERESP collaborative agreement “Acción Transversal del Cancer”).S

Breast cancer survival in the US and Europe: a CONCORD high-resolution study.

Breast cancer survival is reportedly higher in the US than in Europe. The first worldwide study (CONCORD) found wide international differences in age-standardized survival. The aim of this study is to explain these survival differences. Population-based data on stage at diagnosis, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow-up were collected for about 20,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer aged 15-99 years during 1996-98 in 7 US states and 12 European countries. Age-standardized net survival and the excess hazard of death up to 5 years after diagnosis were estimated by jurisdiction (registry, country, European region), age and stage with flexible parametric models. Breast cancers were generally less advanced in the US than in Europe. Stage also varied less between US states than between European jurisdictions. Early, node-negative tumors were more frequent in the US (39%) than in Europe (32%), while locally advanced tumors were twice as frequent in Europe (8%), and metastatic tumors of similar frequency (5-6%). Net survival in Northern, Western and Southern Europe (81-84%) was similar to that in the US (84%), but lower in Eastern Europe (69%). For the first 3 years after diagnosis the mean excess hazard was higher in Eastern Europe than elsewhere: the difference was most marked for women aged 70-99 years, and mainly confined to women with locally advanced or metastatic tumors. Differences in breast cancer survival between Europe and the US in the late 1990s were mainly explained by lower survival in Eastern Europe, where low healthcare expenditure may have constrained the quality of treatment

Estado actual del cáncer de ovario en la provincia de Castellón. Factores pronósticos en la supervivencia observada y relativa. Un estudio basado en registros poblacionales de cáncer de entre 2004 y 2008

Background: The aim of this population-based study was to assess independent prognostic factors in ovarian cancer by analyzing observed and relative survival in a representative Spanish population. Methods: We carried out a retrospective, observational, population-registry-based study. Data on 207 patients with ovarian cancer were provided by the Castellon Cancer Registry. Observed and relative survival were described at 1, 3 and 5 years. The effect of prognostic factors on survival was assessed with univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: The median follow-up was 40.8 months (range: 12—108 months). Observed and relative survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 79%, 51%, 33%, and 84%, 58%, 40%, respectively. Age older than 70 years showed worse observed survival in the univariate and multivariate analyses. Only FIGO stage was an independent prognostic factor for observed and relative survival. Conclusions: Survival is poor in patients with ovarian cancer. In our population-registrybased study, only age at diagnosis and FIGO stage were independent prognostic factors for observed survival, whereas only FIGO stage could be considered a prognostic factor for relative survival.Antecedentes: El objetivo de este estudio poblacional fue evaluar los factores pronósticos independientes de cáncer de ovario mediante el análisis de la supervivencia observada y relativa en una población española representativa. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo, observacional, y basado en un registro de población. Los datos de 207 pacientes con cáncer de ovario proceden del Registro de Cáncer de Castellón. Se describió la supervivencia observada y relativa a 1, 3 y 5 años. El efecto de los factores pronósticos en la supervivencia se evaluó mediante análisis univariantes y multivariantes. Resultados: La mediana de seguimiento fue de 40,8 meses (intervalo: 12-108 meses). Las tasas de supervivencia observada y relativa a 1, 3 y 5 a´ños fueron de 79%, 51% y 33% y de 84%, 58% y 40%, respectivamente. La edad superior a los 70 años mostró la peor supervivencia observada en los análisis univariantes y multivariantes. Sólo el estadio en la clasificación FIGO fue un factor pronóstico independiente de la supervivencia observada y relativa. Conclusiones: La supervivencia en los pacientes con cáncer de ovario es limitada. En nuestro estudio basado en un registro de población, sólo la edad en el momento del diagnóstico y el estadio de FIGO fueron factores pronósticos independientes para la supervivencia observada, mientras que sólo el estadio de la FIGO se podría considerar un factor pronóstico en la supervivencia relativa

Variation in 'standard care' for breast cancer across Europe: a EUROCARE-3 high resolution study.

On a population-based sample of 13,500 European breast cancer patients mostly diagnosed in 1996-1998 and archived by 26 cancer registries, we used logistic regression to estimate odds of conservative surgery plus radiotherapy (BCS+RT) versus other surgery, in T1N0M0 cases by country, adjusted for age and tumour size. We also examined: BCS+RT in relation to total national expenditure on health (TNEH); chemotherapy use in N+ patients; tamoxifen use in oestrogen-positive patients; and whether 10 nodes were examined in lymphadenectomies. Stage, diagnostic examinations and treatments were obtained from clinical records. T1N0M0 cases were 33.0% of the total. 55.0% of T1N0M0 received BCS+RT, range 9.0% (Estonia) to 78.0% (France). Compared to France, odds of BCS+RT were lower in all other countries, even after adjusting for covariates. Women of 70-99 years had 67% lower odds of BCS+RT than women of 15-39 years. BCS+RT was 20% in low TNEH, 58% in medium TNEH, and 64% in high TNEH countries. Chemotherapy was given to 63.0% of N+ and 90.7% of premenopausal N+ (15-49 years), with marked variation by country, mainly in post-menopause (50-99 years). Hormonal therapy was given to 55.5% of oestrogen-positive cases, 44.6% at 15-49 years and 58.8% at 50-99 years; with marked variation across countries especially in premenopause. The variation in breast cancer care across Europe prior to the development of European guidelines was striking; older women received BCS+RT much less than younger women; and adherence to 'standard care' varied even among countries with medium/high TNEH, suggesting sub-optimal resource allocation

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)

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

Treatment challenges in and outside a network setting: Soft tissue sarcomas

Patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) experienced better outcomes when treated according to existing clinical practice guidelines either at reference institution or dedicated treatment networks. Despite increasing evidence supporting referral to sarcoma specialised units, up to half of patients are not managed according to guidelines, particularly those in the early stage of their disease requiring surgery. Also, criteria to certify expertise of institutions, such as the treatment volume, are debated and health authorities have only recently started identification of these centres and creation of treatment networks in Europe as well as in several countries. This process have important implications for both patient outcomes and innovation of existing treatment strategies through clinical research, making improvement of clinical pathways a priority for health care authorities. This article will discuss issues with management of patients with STS, such as pathological diagnosis and adherence to guidelines, and the definition of referral centres and networks will be illustrated along with existing experiences and population-based data