ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: It is generally agreed to centralise treatment of childhood cancers (CCs). We analysed (1) the degree of centralisation of CCs in European countries and 2) the relations between centralisation and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis comprised 4415 CCs, diagnosed between 2000 and 2007 and followed up to the end of 2013, from Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovenia. All these countries had national population-based cancer registries and were able to provide information on diagnosis, treatment, treatment hospitals, and survival. Each case was then classified according to whether the patient was treated in a high- or a low-volume hospital among those providing CC treatment. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate the relation between volume category and five-year survival, adjusting by age, sex and diagnostic group. RESULTS: The number of hospitals providing treatment for CCs ranged from six (Slovenia) to slightly more than 40 (the Netherlands and Belgium). We identified a single higher volume hospital in Ireland and in Slovenia, treating 80% and 97% of cases, respectively, and three to five major hospitals in the other countries, treating between 65% and 93% of cases. Outcome was significantly better when primary treatment was given in high-volume hospitals compared to low-volume hospitals for central nervous system tumours (relative risk [RR] = 0.71), haematologic tumours (RR = 0.74) and for all CC combined (RR = 0.83). CONCLUSION: Treatment centralisation is associated with survival benefits and should be further strengthened in these countries. New plans for centralisation should include ongoing evaluation.
Subject(s)
Centralized Hospital Services/organization & administration , Hospitals, High-Volume , Hospitals, Low-Volume/organization & administration , Neoplasms/therapy , Oncology Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Adolescent , Age of Onset , Child , Child, Preschool , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Healthcare Disparities/organization & administration , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Neoplasms/mortality , Registries , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Complete cancer prevalence data in Europe have never been updated after the first estimates provided by the EUROPREVAL project and referred to the year 1993. This paper provides prevalence estimates for 16 major cancers in Europe at the beginning of the year 2003. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We estimated complete prevalence by the completeness index method. We used information on cancer patients diagnosed in 1978-2002 with vital status information available up to 31 December 2003, from 76 European cancer registries. RESULTS: About 11.6 millions of Europeans with a history of one of the major considered cancers were alive on 1 January 2003. For breast and prostate cancers, about 1 out of 73 women and 1 out of 160 men were living with a previous diagnosis of breast and prostate cancers, respectively. The demographic variations alone will increase the number of prevalent cases to nearly 13 millions in 2010. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors (early detection, population aging and better treatment) contribute to increase cancer prevalence and push for the need of a continuous monitoring of prevalence indicators to properly plan needs, resource allocation to cancer and for improving health care programs for cancer survivors. Cancer prevalence should be included within the EU official health statistics.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Registries , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Registries/statistics & numerical data , Young AdultABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and survival of Extramammary Paget's disease (EMPD) and to describe the possible increased risk of tumours after EMPD. All invasive cases diagnosed between 1990 and 2002 were selected from the RARECARE database. Incidence was expressed in European standardized rates. Relative survival was calculated for the period 1995-1999, with a follow-up until 31st December 2003. Standardized incidence ratios of second primary tumours were calculated to reveal possible increased risk after EMPD. European age standardized Incidence of EMPD within Europe is 0.6 per 1000,000 person years. Five-year relative survival for invasive EMPD was 91.2% (95%CI; 83.5-95.4), 8.6 percent of the EMPD patients developed other malignancies. The highest increased risk of developing a second primary tumour was found in the first year of follow-up (SIR:2.0 95%CI; 1.3-2.9), living in the South European region (SIR:2.3 95%CI; 1.5-3.5) or being female (SIR:1.5 95%CI; 1.1-1.9). Female genital organs displayed greatest increased risk of developing a second primary tumour after EMPD (SIR:15,1 95%CI; 0.38-84.23). Due to the increased risk of a second primary tumour after EMPD a thorough search for other tumours during their follow-up is recommended.