The optimal utilization proportion of external beam radiotherapy in European countries: An ESTRO-HERO analysis

Background and purpose: The absolute number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy in each country of Europe was estimated. Material and methods: The incidence and relative frequency of cancer types from the year 2012 European Cancer Observatory estimates were used in combination with the population-based stage at diagnosis from five cancer registries. These data were applied to the decision trees of the evidence-based indications to calculate the Optimal Utilization Proportion (OUP) by tumour site. Results: In the minimum scenario, the OUP ranged from 47.0% in the Russian Federation to 53.2% in Belgium with no clear geographical pattern of the variability among countries. The impact of stage at diagnosis on the OUP by country was rather limited. Within the 24 countries where data on actual use of radiotherapy were available, a gap between optimal and actual use has been observed in most of the countries. Conclusions: The actual utilization of radiotherapy is significantly lower than the optimal use predicted from the evidence based estimates in the literature. This discrepancy poses a major challenge for policy makers when planning the resources at the national level to improve the provision in European countrie

The impact of cancer incidence and stage on optimal utilization of radiotherapy: Methodology of a population based analysis by the ESTRO-HERO project

Background and purpose: The impact of differences in the distribution of major cancer sites and stages at diagnosis among 4 European countries on the optimal utilization proportion (OUP) of patients who should receive external beam radiotherapy was assessed within the framework of the ESTRO-HERO project. Materials and methods: Data from Australian Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) were used. Population based stages at diagnosis from the cancer registries of Belgium, Slovenia, the Greater Poland region of Poland, and The Netherlands were used to assess the OUP for each country. A sensitivity analysis was carried out. Results: The overall OUP by country varied from the lowest of 48.3% in Australia to the highest of 53.4% in Poland; among European countries the variation was limited to 3%. Cancer site specific OUPs showed differences according to the variability in stage at diagnosis across countries. The most important impact on the OUP by country was due to changes in relative frequency of tumours rather than stage at diagnosis. Conclusions: This methodology can be adapted using European data, thus facilitating the planning of resources required to cope with the demand for radiotherapy in Europe, taking into account the national variability in cancer incidence

Stage shift and relative survival for head and neck cancer during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study of temporal trends

ObjectiveDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, non-essential health services were suspended in Belgium, and the public was ordered to socially isolate. Underdiagnosis of cancer during this period was reported worldwide. Certain risk factors for head and neck cancer (HNC) overlap with those for COVID-19 incidence and mortality, making underdiagnosis and subsequent stage shift of this potentially rapidly progressing cancer a major concern. We aimed to analyze incidence, clinical stage at presentation, and survival of patients diagnosed with HNC in 2020 in Belgium, considering recent temporal trends.MethodsUsing population-based data from the Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR), we extrapolated 2017-2019 trends in incidence, clinical stage, and 1-year relative survival (1yRS) of HNC to create an expected value for 2020 and compared this to the observed value.ResultsThere were 9.5% fewer HNCs diagnosed in 2020, compared to the predicted incidence. Underdiagnosis was larger for males (-11.8%), patients aged 50-64 (-11.2%) and 65-79 (-11.1%), and for oral cavity cancer (-17.6%). Shifts to more advanced stages were observed in larynx and oropharynx tumors and for (male) patients aged 80+. A 2.4 percentage point decline in 1yRS was observed, relative to the increasing trends in 1yRS (2017-2019).ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic led to underdiagnosis of HNC, resulting in shifts to more advanced stage at presentation in certain subgroups. A stage shift can be expected for the 9.5% of tumors not yet diagnosed at the end of 2020. HNC patients diagnosed in 2020 suffered higher than expected mortality

Stratified survival of resected and overall pancreatic cancer patients in Europe and the USA in the early twenty-first century: a large, international population-based study

Abstract: Background The prognosis of pancreatic cancer (PaC) strongly varies across different stages and age groups, which has unfortunately not been well recorded in the literature. This international population-based study aimed to provide tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage- and age-specific survival estimates and trends in resected and overall (resected and unresected) PaC in the early twenty-first century. Methods: Using data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-18 Program and the national cancer registries of the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Slovenia, short-term and long-term overall survival results stratified by TNM stage and age in resected and overall primary PaC, irrespective of being microscopically confirmed or not, in 2003–2014 were computed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The temporal survival trends over three predefined periods (2003–2005, 2006–2008, and 2009–2011) were further examined using the log-rank test. Results: In total, data for 125,183 patients were analyzed. Overall, age-stratified 3-year survival was 20–34% (< 60 years), 14–25% (60–69 years), and 9–13% (≥ 70 years) in stages I–II PaC; and 2–5% (< 60 years), 1–2% (60–69 years), and < 1–1% (≥ 70 years) in stages III–IV cancer. Patients who underwent operation had higher 3-year survival in each stage and age group (stages I–II: 23–39% (< 60 years), 16–31% (60–69 years), and 17–30% (≥ 70 years); stages III–IV: 5–19% (< 70 years) and 2–14% (≥ 70 years)). Perioperative survival also decreased with advancing stage and older age (stages I–II: 98–100% (< 60 years), 97–99% (60–69 years), and 94–99% (≥ 70 years); stages III–IV: 94–99% (< 70 years) and 81–96% (≥ 70 years)). Between 2003 and 2005 and 2009–2011, for overall PaC, both short-term and long-term survival improvements were observed in all countries except Belgium; for resected disease, short-term improvements were present only in the USA and Slovenia, but long-term improvements were observed in all countries except Slovenia, with stage-specific variations. Conclusions: Our large international study provides TNM stage- and age-specific population-based survival in overall and resected PaC that will facilitate clinical counseling. While the survival expectations for patients with resected PaC are substantially higher than the widely available and known dismal survival predictions for overall patients, conclusions on the benefits of resection cannot be made from this observational study. Patients with advanced-stage disease and/or older age should undergo careful risk assessment before treatment. Limited but inspiring improvement in survival is observed

Development and validation of a prognostic model to predict the prognosis of patients who underwent chemotherapy and resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a large international population-based cohort study

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PaC) remains extremely lethal worldwide even after resection. PaC resection rates are low, making prognostic studies in resected PaC difficult. This large international population-based study aimed at exploring factors associated with survival in patients with resected TNM stage I–II PaC receiving chemotherapy and at developing and internationally validating a survival-predicting model. Methods: Data of stage I–II PaC patients resected and receiving chemotherapy in 2003–2014 were obtained from the national cancer registries of Belgium, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Norway, and the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 Program. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to investigate the associations of patient and tumor characteristics with overall survival, and analysis was performed in each country respectively without pooling. Prognostic factors remaining after backward selection in SEER-18 were used to build a nomogram, which was subjected to bootstrap internal validation and external validation using the European datasets. Results: A total of 11,837 resected PaC patients were analyzed, with median survival time of 18–23 months and 3-year survival rates of 21–31%. In the main analysis, patient age, tumor T stage, N stage, and differentiation were associated with survival across most countries, with country-specific association patterns and strengths. However, tumor location was mostly not significantly associated with survival. Resection margin, hospital type, tumor size, positive and harvested lymph node number, lymph node ratio, and comorbidity number were associated with survival in certain countries where the information was available. A median survival time- and 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year survival probability-predictive nomogram incorporating the backward-selected variables in the main analysis was established. It fits each European national cohort similarly well. Calibration curves showed very good agreement between nomogram-prediction and actual observation. The concordance index of the nomogram (0.60) was significantly higher than that of the T and N stage-based model (0.56) for predicting survival. Conclusions: In these large international population-based cohorts, patients with resected PaC receiving chemotherapy have distinct characteristics independently associated with survival, with country-specific patterns and strengths. A robust benchmark population-based survival-predicting model is established and internationally validated. Like previous models predicting survival in resected PaC, our nomogram performs modestly

Intervention-related Deaths in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer

Background: Identification of intervention-related deaths is important for an accurate assessment of the ratio of benefit to harm in screening trials. Objective: To investigate intervention-related deaths by study arm in the European Randomized Study of Prostate Cancer Screening (ERSPC). Design, setting, and participants: ERSPC is a multicenter trial initiated in the 1990s to investigate whether screening on the basis of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can decrease prostate cancer mortality. The present study included men in the core age group (55–69 yr: screening group n = 112 553, control group n = 128 681) with 16-yr follow-up. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Causes of death among men with prostate cancer in ERSPC were predominantly evaluated by independent national committees via review of medical records according to a predefined algorithm. Intervention-related deaths were defined as deaths caused by complications during the screening procedure, treatment, or follow-up. Descriptive statistics were used for the results. Results and limitations: In total, 34 deaths were determined to be intervention-related, of which 21 were in the screening arm and 13 in the control arm. The overall risk of intervention-related death was 1.41 (95% confidence interval 0.99–1.99) per 10 000 randomized men for both arms combined and varied among centers from 0 to 7.0 per 10 000 randomized men. A limitation of this study is that differences in procedures among centers decreased the comparability of the results. Conclusions: Intervention-related deaths were rare in ERSPC. Monitoring of intervention-related deaths in screening trials is important for assessment of harms. Patient summary: We investigated deaths due to screening or treatment to assess harm in a trial of prostate cancer screening. Few such deaths were identified.publishedVersionPeer reviewe

Cancer treatment data available in European cancer registries: Where are we and where are we going?

Population-based cancer registries are responsible for collecting incidence and survival data on all reportable neoplasms within a defined geographical area. During the last decades, the role of cancer registries has evolved beyond monitoring epidemiological indicators, as they are expanding their activities to studies on cancer aetiology, prevention, and quality of care. This expansion relies also on the collection of additional clinical data, such as stage at diagnosis and cancer treatment. While the collection of data on stage, according to international reference classification, is consolidated almost everywhere, data collection on treatment is still very heterogeneous in Europe. This article combines data from a literature review and conference proceedings together with data from 125 European cancer registries contributing to the 2015 ENCR-JRC data call to provide an overview of the status of using and reporting treatment data in population-based cancer registries. The literature review shows that there is an increase in published data on cancer treatment by population-based cancer registries over the years. In addition, the review indicates that treatment data are most often collected for breast cancer, the most frequent cancer in women in Europe, followed by colorectal, prostate and lung cancers, which are also more common. Treatment data are increasingly being reported by cancer registries, though further improvements are required to ensure their complete and harmonised collection. Sufficient financial and human resources are needed to collect and analyse treatment data. Clear registration guidelines are to be made available to increase the availability of real-world treatment data in a harmonised way across Europe

Cancer risks in patients treated with growth hormone in childhood: the SAGhE European cohort study.

Context: Growth hormone (GH) is prescribed for an increasing range of indications, but there has been concern that it might raise cancer risk. Published data are limited. Objective: To examine cancer risks in relation to GH treatment. Design: Cohort study. Setting: Population-based. Patients: Cohort of 23,984 patients treated with recombinant human GH (r-hGH) in eight European countries since this treatment was first used in 1984. Cancer expectations from country-specific national population statistics. Main Outcome Measures: Cancer incidence and cancer mortality. Results: Incidence and mortality risks in the cohort were raised for several cancer sites, largely consequent on second primary malignancies in patients given r-hGH after cancer treatment. There was no clear raised risk in patients with growth failure without other major disease. Only for bone and bladder cancers was incidence significantly raised in GH-treated patients without previous cancer. Cancer risk was unrelated to duration or cumulative dose of r-hGH treatment, but for patients treated after previous cancer, cancer mortality risk increased significantly with increasing daily r-hGH dose (P trend < 0.001). Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) incidence increased significantly with longer follow-up (P trend = 0.001 for patients overall and 0.002 for patients without previous cancer). Conclusions: Our results do not generally support a carcinogenic effect of r-hGH, but the unexplained trend in cancer mortality risk in relation to GH dose in patients with previous cancer, and the indication of possible effects on bone cancer, bladder cancer, and HL risks, need further investigation