Treatment and Survival of Elderly Patients with Stage I–II Pancreatic Cancer: A Report of the EURECCA Pancreas Consortium

Background: Elderly patients with pancreatic cancer are underrepresented in clinical trials, resulting in a lack of evidence. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare treatment and overall survival (OS) of patients aged ≥ 70 years with stage I–II pancreatic cancer in the EURECCA Pancreas Consortium. Methods: This was an observational cohort study of the Belgian (BE), Dutch (NL), and Norwegian (NOR) cancer registries. The primary outcome was OS, while secondary outcomes were resection, 90-day mortality after resection, and (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy. Results: In total, 3624 patients were included. Resection (BE: 50.2%; NL: 36.2%; NOR: 41.3%; p < 0.001), use of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy (BE: 55.9%; NL: 41.9%; NOR: 13.8%; p < 0.001), palliative chemotherapy (BE: 39.5%; NL: 6.0%; NOR: 15.7%; p < 0.001), and 90-day mortality differed (BE: 11.7%; NL: 8.0%; NOR: 5.2%; p < 0.001). Furthermore, median OS in patients with (BE: 17.4; NL: 15.9; NOR: 25.4 months; p < 0.001) and without resection (BE: 7.0; NL: 3.9; NOR: 6.5 months; p < 0.001) also differed. Conclusions: Differences were observed in treatment and OS in patients aged ≥ 70 years with stage I–II pancreatic cancer, between the population-based cancer registries. Future studies should focus on selection criteria for (non)surgical treatment in older patients so that clinicians can tailor treatment

Cancer data quality and harmonization in Europe: the experience of the BENCHISTA Project – international benchmarking of childhood cancer survival by stage

IntroductionVariation in stage at diagnosis of childhood cancers (CC) may explain differences in survival rates observed across geographical regions. The BENCHISTA project aims to understand these differences and to encourage the application of the Toronto Staging Guidelines (TG) by Population-Based Cancer Registries (PBCRs) to the most common solid paediatric cancers.MethodsPBCRs within and outside Europe were invited to participate and identify all cases of Neuroblastoma, Wilms Tumour, Medulloblastoma, Ewing Sarcoma, Rhabdomyosarcoma and Osteosarcoma diagnosed in a consecutive three-year period (2014-2017) and apply TG at diagnosis. Other non-stage prognostic factors, treatment, progression/recurrence, and cause of death information were collected as optional variables. A minimum of three-year follow-up was required. To standardise TG application by PBCRs, on-line workshops led by six tumour-specific clinical experts were held. To understand the role of data availability and quality, a survey focused on data collection/sharing processes and a quality assurance exercise were generated. To support data harmonization and query resolution a dedicated email and a question-and-answers bank were created.Results67 PBCRs from 28 countries participated and provided a maximally de-personalized, patient-level dataset. For 26 PBCRs, data format and ethical approval obtained by the two sponsoring institutions (UCL and INT) was sufficient for data sharing. 41 participating PBCRs required a Data Transfer Agreement (DTA) to comply with data protection regulations. Due to heterogeneity found in legal aspects, 18 months were spent on finalizing the DTA. The data collection survey was answered by 68 respondents from 63 PBCRs; 44% of them confirmed the ability to re-consult a clinician in cases where stage ascertainment was difficult/uncertain. Of the total participating PBCRs, 75% completed the staging quality assurance exercise, with a median correct answer proportion of 92% [range: 70% (rhabdomyosarcoma) to 100% (Wilms tumour)].ConclusionDifferences in interpretation and processes required to harmonize general data protection regulations across countries were encountered causing delays in data transfer. Despite challenges, the BENCHISTA Project has established a large collaboration between PBCRs and clinicians to collect detailed and standardised TG at a population-level enhancing the understanding of the reasons for variation in overall survival rates for CC, stimulate research and improve national/regional child health plans

Quality of care indicators in rectal cancer.

Quality of health care is a hot topic, especially with regard to cancer. Although rectal cancer is, in many aspects, a model oncologic entity, there seem to be substantial differences in quality of care between countries, hospitals and physicians. PROCARE, a Belgian multidisciplinary national project to improve outcome in all patients with rectum cancer, identified a set of quality of care indicators covering all aspects of the management of rectal cancer. This set should permit national and international benchmarking, i.e. comparing results from individual hospitals or teams with national and international performances with feedback to participating teams. Such comparison could indicate whether further improvement is possible and/or warranted.Journal ArticleReviewinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Skin melanoma deaths within 1 or 3 years from diagnosis in Europe

The steep increase in incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma in white populations mainly applies to thin lesions with good survival suggesting overdiagnosis. Based on population-based cancer registries (CRs), we have investigated changes in aggressive melanoma, selecting only cases who died within 1 or 3 years after diagnosis in 11 European countries between 1995 and 2012. Trends in fatal cases were analysed by period of diagnosis, sex, tumour thickness, histologic subtype of the lesion, tumour site and CR with a multivariate generalised linear mixed effects model, where geographical area was considered as a random effect. We collected data on 123 360 invasive melanomas, with 5133 fatal cases at 1 year (4%) and 12 330 (10%) at 3 years. The number of fatal cases showed a 16% decrease at 1 year and 8% at 3 years between the first (1995-2000) and the last (2007-2012) period. The highest proportion of fatal cases was seen for men, older age (≥65 years), thick lesions (&gt;1 mm), nodular melanoma, melanoma on the trunk and for poorly documented cases, lacking information about thickness and histologic subtype. The mixed-effects model showed a remarkable variability among European countries. The majority of registries showed a decreasing trend in fatal cases, but a few registries showed an opposite pattern. Trends in fatal melanoma cases, highlighting real changes in risk not related to overdiagnosis, showed a decrease in most European countries, with a few exceptions. Stronger efforts for early detection could lead to a more efficient treatment of melanoma in general

Variation in treatment and survival of older patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in five European countries: A population-based cohort study from the EURECCA Breast Cancer Group

Background: Older patients are poorly represented in breast cancer research and guidelines do not provide evidence based recommendations for this specific group. We compared treatment strategies and survival outcomes between European countries and assessed whether variance in treatment patterns may be associated with variation in survival. Methods: Population-based study including patients aged ≥ 70 with non-metastatic BC from cancer registries from the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, England and Greater Poland. Proportions of local and systemic treatments, five-year relative survival and relative excess risks (RER) between countries were calculated. Results: In total, 236,015 patients were included. The proportion of stage I BC receiving endocrine therapy ranged from 19.6% (Netherlands) to 84.6% (Belgium). The proportion of stage III BC receiving no breast surgery varied between 22.0% (Belgium) and 50.8% (Ireland). For stage I BC, relative survival was lower in England compared with Belgium (RER 2.96, 95%CI 1.30-6.72, P <.001). For stage III BC, England, Ireland and Greater Poland showed significantly worse relative survival compared with Belgium. Conclusions: There is substantial variation in treatment strategies and survival outcomes in elderly with BC in Europe. For early-stage BC, we observed large variation in endocrine therapy but no variation in relative survival, suggesting potential overtreatment. For advanced BC, we observed higher survival in countries with lower proportions of omission of surgery, suggesting potential undertreatment

Treatment and survival of rectal cancer patients over the age of 80 years: a EURECCA international comparison

Surgical oncolog

Rare ovarian tumours: Epidemiology, treatment challenges in and outside a network setting

More than 50% of all gynaecological cancers can be classified as rare tumours (defined as an annual incidence of <6 per 100,000) and such tumours represent an important challenge for clinicians. Rare cancers account for more than one fifth of all new cancer diagnoses, more than any of the single common cancers alone. Reviewing the RARECAREnet database, some of the tumours occur infrequently, whilst others because of their natural history have a high prevalence, and therefore appear to be more common, although their incidence is also rare. Harmonization of medical practice, guidelines and novel trials are needed to identify rare tumours and facilitate the development of new treatments. Ovarian tumours are the focus of this review, but we comment on other rare gynaecological tumours, as the diagnosis and treatment challenges faced are similar. This requires European collaboration, international partnerships, harmonization of treatment and collaboration to overcome the regulatory barriers to conduct international trials. Whilst randomized trials can be done in many tumour types, there are some for which conducting even single arm studies may be challenging. For these tumours alternative study designs, robust collection of data through national registries and audits could lead to improvements in the treatment of rare tumours. In addition, concentring the care of patients with rare tumours into a limited number of centres will help to build expertise, facilitate trials and improve outcome

Rare ovarian tumours: Epidemiology, treatment challenges in and outside a network setting

Purpose of the review: More than 50% of all gynaecological cancers can be classified as rare tumours (defined as an annual incidence of <6 per 100,000) and such tumours represent an important challenge for clinicians. Recent findings: Rare cancers account for more than one fifth of all new cancer diagnoses, more than any of the single common cancers alone. Reviewing the RARECAREnet database, some of the tumours occur infrequently, whilst others because of their natural history have a high prevalence, and therefore appear to be more common, although their incidence is also rare. Harmonization of medical practice, guidelines and novel trials are needed to identify rare tumours and facilitate the development of new treatments. Ovarian tumours are the focus of this review, but we comment on other rare gynaecological tumours, as the diagnosis and treatment challenges faced are similar. Future: This requires European collaboration, international partnerships, harmonization of treatment and collaboration to overcome the regulatory barriers to conduct international trials. Whilst randomized trials can be done in many tumour types, there are some for which conducting even single arm studies may be challenging. For these tumours alternative study designs, robust collection of data through national registries and audits could lead to improvements in the treatment of rare tumours. In addition, concentring the care of patients with rare tumours into a limited number of centres will help to build expertise, facilitate trials and improve outcomes

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