Colorectal cancer survival in the USA and Europe: a CONCORD high-resolution study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which stage at diagnosis and adherence to treatment guidelines may explain the persistent differences in colorectal cancer survival between the USA and Europe. DESIGN: A high-resolution study using detailed clinical data on Dukes' stage, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow-up, collected directly from medical records by trained abstractors under a single protocol, with standardised quality control and central statistical analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 21 population-based registries in seven US states and nine European countries provided data for random samples comprising 12 523 adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 1996-1998. OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression models were used to compare adherence to 'standard care' in the USA and Europe. Net survival and excess risk of death were estimated with flexible parametric models. RESULTS: The proportion of Dukes' A and B tumours was similar in the USA and Europe, while that of Dukes' C was more frequent in the USA (38% vs 21%) and of Dukes' D more frequent in Europe (22% vs 10%). Resection with curative intent was more frequent in the USA (85% vs 75%). Elderly patients (75-99 years) were 70-90% less likely to receive radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Age-standardised 5-year net survival was similar in the USA (58%) and Northern and Western Europe (54-56%) and lowest in Eastern Europe (42%). The mean excess hazard up to 5 years after diagnosis was highest in Eastern Europe, especially among elderly patients and those with Dukes' D tumours. CONCLUSIONS: The wide differences in colorectal cancer survival between Europe and the USA in the late 1990s are probably attributable to earlier stage and more extensive use of surgery and adjuvant treatment in the USA. Elderly patients with colorectal cancer received surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy less often than younger patients, despite evidence that they could also have benefited

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

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 >140 per 100,000 (Italy, Scotland, France, Germany, and Switzerland) and <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

Long-term survival and cure fraction estimates for childhood cancer in Europe (EUROCARE-6): results from a population-based study

Background: The EUROCARE-5 study revealed disparities in childhood cancer survival among European countries, giving rise to important initiatives across Europe to reduce the gap. Extending its representativeness through increased coverage of eastern European countries, the EUROCARE-6 study aimed to update survival progress across countries and years of diagnosis and provide new analytical perspectives on estimates of long-term survival and the cured fraction of patients with childhood cancer. Methods: In this population-based study, we analysed 135 847 children (aged 0–14 years) diagnosed during 2000–13 and followed up to the end of 2014, recruited from 80 population-based cancer registries in 31 European countries. We calculated age-adjusted 5-year survival differences by country and over time using period analysis, for all cancers combined and for major cancer types. We applied a variant of standard mixture cure models for survival data to estimate the cure fraction of patients by childhood cancer and to estimate projected 15-year survival. Findings: 5-year survival for all childhood cancer combined in Europe in 2010–14 was 81% (95% CI 81–82), showing an increase of three percentage points compared with 2004–06. Significant progress over time was observed for almost all cancers. Survival remained stable for osteosarcomas, Ewing sarcoma, Burkitt lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and rhabdomyoscarcomas. For all cancers combined, inequalities still persisted among European countries (with age-adjusted 5-year survival ranging from 71% [95% CI 60–79] to 87% [77–93]). The 15-year survival projection for all patients with childhood cancer diagnosed in 2010–13 was 78%. We estimated the yearly long-term mortality rate due to causes other than the diagnosed cancer to be around 2 per 1000 patients for all childhood cancer combined, but to approach zero for retinoblastoma. The cure fraction for patients with childhood cancer increased over time from 74% (95% CI 73–75) in 1998–2001 to 80% (79–81) in 2010–13. In the latter cohort, the cure fraction rate ranged from 99% (95% CI 74–100) for retinoblastoma to 60% (58–63) for CNS tumours and reached 90% (95% CI 87–93) for lymphoid leukaemia and 70% (67–73) for acute myeloid leukaemia. Interpretation: Childhood cancer survival is increasing over time in Europe but there are still some differences among countries. Regular monitoring of childhood cancer survival and estimation of the cure fraction through population-based registry data are crucial for evaluating advances in paediatric cancer care. Funding: European Commission

Worldwide trends in population-based survival for children, adolescents, and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia, by subtype, during 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual data from 258 cancer registries in 61 countries

Background: Leukaemias comprise a heterogenous group of haematological malignancies. In CONCORD-3, we analysed data for children (aged 0–14 years) and adults (aged 15–99 years) diagnosed with a haematological malignancy during 2000–14 in 61 countries. Here, we aimed to examine worldwide trends in survival from leukaemia, by age and morphology, in young patients (aged 0–24 years). Methods: We analysed data from 258 population-based cancer registries in 61 countries participating in CONCORD-3 that submitted data on patients diagnosed with leukaemia. We grouped patients by age as children (0–14 years), adolescents (15–19 years), and young adults (20–24 years). We categorised leukaemia subtypes according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC-3), updated with International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third edition (ICD-O-3) codes. We estimated 5-year net survival by age and morphology, with 95% CIs, using the non-parametric Pohar-Perme estimator. To control for background mortality, we used life tables by country or region, single year of age, single calendar year and sex, and, where possible, by race or ethnicity. All-age survival estimates were standardised to the marginal distribution of young people with leukaemia included in the analysis. Findings: 164 563 young people were included in this analysis: 121 328 (73·7%) children, 22 963 (14·0%) adolescents, and 20 272 (12·3%) young adults. In 2010–14, the most common subtypes were lymphoid leukaemia (28 205 [68·2%] patients) and acute myeloid leukaemia (7863 [19·0%] patients). Age-standardised 5-year net survival in children, adolescents, and young adults for all leukaemias combined during 2010–14 varied widely, ranging from 46% in Mexico to more than 85% in Canada, Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Australia. Individuals with lymphoid leukaemia had better age-standardised survival (from 43% in Ecuador to ≥80% in parts of Europe, North America, Oceania, and Asia) than those with acute myeloid leukaemia (from 32% in Peru to ≥70% in most high-income countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania). Throughout 2000–14, survival from all leukaemias combined remained consistently higher for children than adolescents and young adults, and minimal improvement was seen for adolescents and young adults in most countries. Interpretation: This study offers the first worldwide picture of population-based survival from leukaemia in children, adolescents, and young adults. Adolescents and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia continue to have lower survival than children. Trends in survival from leukaemia for adolescents and young adults are important indicators of the quality of cancer management in this age group