Estimating cure and risk of death from other causes of cancer patients: EUROCARE-6 data on head & neck, colorectal, and breast cancers.

BACKGROUND: To estimate net survival and cancer cure fraction (CF), i.e. the proportion of patients no longer at risk of dying from cancer progression/relapse, a clear distinction needs to be made between mortality from cancer and from other causes. Conventionally, CF is estimated assuming no excess mortality compared to the general population. METHODS: A new modelling approach, that corrects for patients' extra risk of dying (RR) from causes other than the diagnosed cancer, was considered to estimate both indicators. We analysed EUROCARE-6 data on head and neck (H&N), colorectal, and breast cancer patients aged 40-79, diagnosed from 1998 to 2002 and followed-up to 31/12/2014, provided by 65 European cancer registries. FINDINGS: Young male H&N cancer patients have 4 times the risk of dying from other causes than their peers, this risk decreases with age to 1.6. Similar results were observed for female. We observed an absolute increase in CF of 30 % using the new model instead of the conventional one. For colorectal cancer, CF with the new model increased by a maximum of 3 % for older patients and the RR ranged from 1 to 1.2 for both sexes. CF of female breast cancer ranged from 73 % to 79 % using the new cure model, with RR between 1.2 and 1.4. INTERPRETATION: Not considering a RR> 1 leads to underestimate the proportion of patients not bound to die of their diagnosed cancer. Estimates of cancer mortality risk have an important impact on patients' quality of life.

Corrigendum: Cancer data quality and harmonization in Europe: The experience of the BENCHISTA Project - International Benchmarking of Childhood Cancer Survival by Stage.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1232451.].

Survival of European adolescents and young adults diagnosed with cancer in 2010-2014.

BACKGROUND: We used the comprehensive definition of AYA (age 15 to 39 years) to update 5-year relative survival (RS) estimates for AYAs in Europe and across countries and to evaluate improvements in survival over time. METHODS: We used data from EUROCARE-6. We analysed 700,000 AYAs with cancer diagnosed in 2000-2013 (follow-up to 2014). We focused the analyses on the 12 most common cancers in AYA. We used period analysis to estimate 5-year RS in Europe and 5-year RS differences in 29 countries (2010-2014 period estimate) and over time (2004-06 vs. 2010-14 period estimates). FINDINGS: 5-year RS for all AYA tumours was 84%, ranging from 70% to 90% for most of the 12 tumours analysed. The exceptions were acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, acute myeloid leukaemia, and central nervous system tumours, presenting survival of 59%, 61%, and 62%, respectively. Differences in survival were observed among European countries for all cancers, except thyroid cancers and ovarian germ-cell tumours. Survival improved over time for most cancers in the 15- to 39-year-old age group, but for fewer cancers in adolescents and 20- to 29-year-olds. INTERPRETATION: This is the most comprehensive study to report the survival of 12 cancers in AYAs in 29 European countries. We showed variability in survival among countries most likely due to differences in stage at diagnosis, access to treatment, and lack of referral to expert centres. Survival has improved especially for haematological cancers. Further efforts are needed to improve survival for other cancers as well, especially in adolescents.

Cure indicators and prevalence by stage at diagnosis for breast and colorectal cancer patients: A population-based study in Italy.

People alive many years after breast (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnoses are increasing. This paper aimed to estimate the indicators of cancer cure and complete prevalence for Italian patients with BC and CRC by stage and age. A total of 31 Italian Cancer Registries (47% of the population) data until 2017 were included. Mixture cure models allowed estimation of net survival (NS); cure fraction (CF); time to cure (TTC, 5-year conditional NS >95%); cure prevalence (who will not die of cancer); and already cured (prevalent patients living longer than TTC). 2.6% of all Italian women (806,410) were alive in 2018 after BC and 88% will not die of BC. For those diagnosed in 2010, CF was 73%, 99% when diagnosed at stage I, 81% at stage II, and 36% at stages III-IV. For all stages combined, TTC was >10 years under 45 and over 65 years and for women with advanced stages, but ≤1 year for all BC patients at stage I. The proportion of already cured prevalent BC women was 75% (94% at stage I). Prevalent CRC cases were 422,407 (0.7% of the Italian population), 90% will not die of CRC. For CRC patients, CF was 56%, 92% at stage I, 71% at stage II, and 35% at stages III-IV. TTC was ≤10 years for all age groups and stages. Already cured were 59% of all prevalent CRC patients (93% at stage I). Cancer cure indicators by stage may contribute to appropriate follow-up in the years after diagnosis, thus avoiding patients' discrimination.

Complete cancer prevalence in Europe in 2020 by disease duration and country (EUROCARE-6): a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors-people living with and beyond cancer-are a growing population with different health needs depending on prognosis and time since diagnosis. Despite being increasingly necessary, complete information on cancer prevalence is not systematically available in all European countries. We aimed to fill this gap by analysing population-based cancer registry data from the EUROCARE-6 study. METHODS: In this population-based study, using incidence and follow-up data up to Jan 1, 2013, from 61 cancer registries, complete and limited-duration prevalence by cancer type, sex, and age were estimated for 29 European countries and the 27 countries in the EU (EU27; represented by 22 member states that contributed registry data) using the completeness index method. We focused on 32 malignant cancers defined according to the third edition of the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, and only the first primary tumour was considered when estimating the prevalence. Prevalence measures are expressed in terms of absolute number of prevalent cases, crude prevalence proportion (reported as percentage or cases per 100 000 resident people), and age-standardised prevalence proportion based on the European Standard Population 2013. We made projections of cancer prevalence proportions up to Jan 1, 2020, using linear regression. FINDINGS: In 2020, 23 711 thousand (95% CI 23 565-23 857) people (5·0% of the population) were estimated to be alive after a cancer diagnosis in Europe, and 22 347 thousand (95% CI 22 210-22 483) in EU27. Cancer survivors were more frequently female (12 818 thousand [95% CI 12 720-12 917]) than male (10 892 thousand [10 785-11 000]). The five leading tumours in female survivors were breast cancer, colorectal cancer, corpus uterine cancer, skin melanoma, and thyroid cancer (crude prevalence proportion from 2270 [95%CI 2248-2292] per 100 000 to 301 [297-305] per 100 000). Prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, urinary bladder cancer, skin melanoma, and kidney cancer were the most common tumours in male survivors (from 1714 [95% CI 1686-1741] per 100 000 to 255 [249-260] per 100 000). The differences in prevalence between countries were large (from 2 to 10 times depending on cancer type), in line with the demographic structure, incidence, and survival patterns. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of prevalent cases increased by 3·5% per year (41% overall), partly due to an ageing population. In 2020, 14 850 thousand (95% CI 14 681-15 018) people were estimated to be alive more than 5 years after diagnosis and 9099 thousand (8909-9288) people were estimated to be alive more than 10 years after diagnosis, representing an increasing proportion of the cancer survivor population. INTERPRETATION: Our findings are useful at the country level in Europe to support evidence-based policies to improve the quality of life, care, and rehabilitation of patients with cancer throughout the disease pathway. Future work includes estimating time to cure by stage at diagnosis in prevalent cases. FUNDING: European Commission.

Childhood and Adolescent Central Nervous System Tumours in Spain: Incidence and Survival over 20 Years: A Historical Baseline for Current Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms are highly frequent solid tumours in children and adolescents. While some studies have shown a rise in their incidence in Europe, others have not. Survival remains limited. We addressed two questions about these tumours in Spain: (1) Is incidence increasing? and (2) Has survival improved? METHODS: This population-based study included 1635 children and 328 adolescents from 11 population-based cancer registries with International Classification of Childhood Cancer Group III tumours, incident in 1983-2007. Age-specific and age-standardised (world population) incidence rates (ASRws) were calculated. Incidence time trends were characterised using annual percent change (APC) obtained with Joinpoint. Cases from 1991 to 2005 (1171) were included in Kaplan-Meier survival analyses, and the results were evaluated with log-rank and log-rank for trend tests. Children's survival was age-standardised using: (1) the age distribution of cases and the corresponding trends assessed with Joinpoint; and (2) European weights for comparison with Europe. RESULTS: ASRw 1983-2007: children: 32.7 cases/106; adolescents: 23.5 cases/106. The overall incidence of all tumours increased across 1983-2007 in children and adolescents. Considering change points, the APCs were: (1) children: 1983-1993, 4.3%^ (1.1; 7.7); 1993-2007, -0.2% (-1.9; 1.6); (2) adolescents: 1983-2004: 2.9%^ (0.9; 4.9); 2004-2007: -7.7% (-40; 41.9). For malignant tumours, the trends were not significant. 5-year survival was 65% (1991-2005), with no significant trends (except for non-malignant tumours). CONCLUSIONS: CNS tumour incidence in Spain was found to be similar to that in Europe. Rises in incidence may be mostly attributable to changes in the registration of non-malignant tumours. The overall malignant CNS tumour trend was compatible with reports for Southern Europe. Survival was lower than in Europe, without improvement over time. We provide a baseline for assessing current paediatric oncology achievements and incidence in respect of childhood and adolescent CNS tumours.

Head and neck cancers survival in Europe, Taiwan, and Japan: results from RARECAREnet Asia based on a privacy-preserving federated infrastructure.

Background: The head and neck cancers (HNCs) incidence differs between Europe and East Asia. Our objective was to determine whether survival of HNC also differs between European and Asian countries. Methods: We used population-based cancer registry data to calculate 5-year relative survival (RS) for the oral cavity, hypopharynx, larynx, nasal cavity, and major salivary gland in Europe, Taiwan, and Japan. We modeled RS with a generalized linear model adjusting for time since diagnosis, sex, age, subsite, and histological grouping. Analyses were performed using federated learning, which enables analyses without sharing sensitive data. Findings: Five-year RS for HNC varied between geographical areas. For each HNC site, Europe had a lower RS than both Japan and Taiwan. HNC subsites and histologies distribution and survival differed between the three areas. Differences between Europe and both Asian countries persisted even after adjustments for all HNC sites but nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, when comparing Europe and Taiwan. Interpretation: Survival differences can be attributed to different factors including different period of diagnosis, more advanced stage at diagnosis, or different availability/access of treatment. Cancer registries did not have stage and treatment information to further explore the reasons of the observed survival differences. Our analyses have confirmed federated learning as a feasible approach for data analyses that addresses the challenges of data sharing and urge for further collaborative studies including relevant prognostic factors.

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

Introduction: Variation 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. Methods: PBCRs 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. Results: 67 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)]. Conclusion: Differences 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.

Prediction of Risk of Metastatic Recurrence for Female Breast Cancer Patients in the Presence of Competing Causes of Death.

BACKGROUND: To estimate risk of recurrence for women diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer considering the risks of other causes mortality. METHODS: We extend a method based on the diagnosis-metastasis-death pathway to include risks of other causes mortality. We estimate three probabilities as cumulative incidence of: (i) being alive and recurrence-free, (ii) death for other causes before a recurrence, and (iii) recurrence. We apply the method to female breast cancer relative survival from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program registries (2000-2018) data. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of recurrence shows a higher increase with more advanced cancer stage and is less influenced by age at diagnosis. At 5 years from diagnosis, the cumulative incidence of recurrence is less than 3% for those diagnosed with stage I, 10% to 13% for those diagnosed with stage II, and 37% to 47% for those diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. The estimates of recurrence considering versus ignoring the risks of dying from other causes were generally consistent, except for older women with more advanced stage, and longer time since diagnosis. In these groups, the net probability of recurrence, excluding the risks of dying from other causes, were overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with cancer who are older or long-term survivors, it is important to include the risks of other cause mortality as the crude cumulative incidence of recurrence is a more appropriate measure. IMPACT: These estimates are important in clinical decision making, as higher competing mortality may preclude the benefits of aggressive treatments.

Complete prevalence and indicators of cancer cure: enhanced methods and validation in Italian population-based cancer registries.

Objectives: To describe the procedures to derive complete prevalence and several indicators of cancer cure from population-based cancer registries. Materials and methods: Cancer registry data (47% of the Italian population) were used to calculate limited duration prevalence for 62 cancer types by sex and registry. The incidence and survival models, needed to calculate the completeness index (R) and complete prevalence, were evaluated by likelihood ratio tests and by visual comparison. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the effect on the complete prevalence of using different R indexes. Mixture cure models were used to estimate net survival (NS); life expectancy of fatal (LEF) cases; cure fraction (CF); time to cure (TTC); cure prevalence, prevalent patients who were not at risk of dying as a result of cancer; and already cured patients, those living longer than TTC at a specific point in time. CF was also compared with long-term NS since, for patients diagnosed after a certain age, CF (representing asymptotical values of NS) is reached far beyond the patient's life expectancy. Results: For the most frequent cancer types, the Weibull survival model stratified by sex and age showed a very good fit with observed survival. For men diagnosed with any cancer type at age 65-74 years, CF was 41%, while the NS was 49% until age 100 and 50% until age 90. In women, similar differences emerged for patients with any cancer type or with breast cancer. Among patients alive in 2018 with colorectal cancer at age 55-64 years, 48% were already cured (had reached their specific TTC), while the cure prevalence (lifelong probability to be cured from cancer) was 89%. Cure prevalence became 97.5% (2.5% will die because of their neoplasm) for patients alive >5 years after diagnosis. Conclusions: This study represents an addition to the current knowledge on the topic providing a detailed description of available indicators of prevalence and cancer cure, highlighting the links among them, and illustrating their interpretation. Indicators may be relevant for patients and clinical practice; they are unambiguously defined, measurable, and reproducible in different countries where population-based cancer registries are active.

Descriptive epidemiology of the head and neck cancers in old patients.

Background: In Europe, as in other high-income (HI) countries, quite half of the newly diagnosed patients with head and neck (H and N) cancers are older than 65 years of age and their proportion within the prevalent cases is even higher. Moreover, the incidence rate (IR) for all H and N cancers sites increased with age and the survival rate is lower in older patients (≥65), compared with younger patients (<65). The number of older patients affected by H and N cancers will increase because of the increase in life expectancy. The aim of the article is to provide an epidemiological description of H and N cancers in the elderly population. Material and methods: Incidence and prevalence data by time periods and continents were extracted from the Global Cancer Observatory. The survival information for Europe is obtained from the EUROCARE and RARECAREnet projects. In 2020, according to the results from these data, slightly more than 900,000 cases have been diagnosed with H and N cancers in the world, and approximately 40% were older than 65 years of age. This percentage was higher, reaching approximately 50% in the HI countries. The highest number of cases was in the Asiatic populations, while the highest crude IR was in Europe and Oceania. Among H and N cancers occurring in the elderly, laryngeal and oral cavity cancers were the most common, while nasal cavities and nasopharyngeal cancers were the rarest. This was true for all the countries, excluding some Asiatic populations, in which tumour of the nasopharynx was more common. The five-year survival rate in the European population was low in the elderly, compared with the younger for all H and N cancers, and it ranged from approximately 60% for both salivary-gland type and laryngeal to 22% for hypopharyngeal tumors. For the elderly, the conditional 5-year survival after surviving one year became more than 60% for many H and N epithelial tumors. Conclusion: The high variability in the H and N cancer incidence around the world is due to the distribution of the major risk factors which for the elderly are mainly alcohol and smoking. The reasons for low survival in the elderly are most likely due to the complexity of treatment, the late arrival of patients at diagnosis, and the difficult access to specialized centers.

The observational clinical registry (cohort design) of the European Reference Network on Rare Adult Solid Cancers: The protocol for the rare head and neck cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Care for head and neck cancers is complex in particular for the rare ones. Knowledge is limited and histological heterogeneity adds complexity to the rarity. There is a wide consensus that to support clinical research on rare cancer, clinical registries should be developed within networks specializing in rare cancers. In the EU, a unique opportunity is provided by the European Reference Networks (ERN). The ERN EURACAN is dedicated to rare adults solid cancers, here we present the protocol of the EURACAN registry on rare head and neck cancers (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05483374). STUDY DESIGN: Registry-based cohort study including only people with rare head and neck cancers. OBJECTIVES: to help describe the natural history of rare head and neck cancers;to evaluate factors that influence prognosis;to assess treatment effectiveness;to measure indicators of quality of care. METHODS: Settings and participants It is an hospital based registry established in hospitals with expertise in head and neck cancers. Only adult patients with epithelial tumours of nasopharynx; nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses; salivary gland cancer in large and small salivary glands; and middle ear will be included in the registry. This registry won't select a sample of patients. Each patient in the facility who meets the above mentioned inclusion criteria will be followed prospectively and longitudinally with follow-up at cancer progression and / or cancer relapse or patient death. It is a secondary use of data which will be collected from the clinical records. The data collected for the registry will not entail further examinations or admissions to the facility and/or additional appointments to those normally provided for the patient follow-up. Variables Data will be collected on patient characteristics (eg. patient demographics, lifestyle, medical history, health status); exposure data (eg. disease, procedures, treatments of interest) and outcomes (e.g. survival, progression, progression-free survival, etc.). In addition, data on potential confounders (e.g. comorbidity; functional status etc.) will be also collected. Statistical methods The data analyses will include descriptive statistics showing patterns of patients' and cancers' variables and indicators describing the quality of care. Multivariable Cox's proportional hazards model and Hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause or cause specific mortality will be used to determine independent predictors of overall survival, recurrence etc. Variables to include in the multivariable regression model will be selected based on the results of univariable analysis. The role of confounding or effect modifiers will be evaluated using stratified analysis or sensitivity analysis. To assess treatment effectiveness, multivariable models with propensity score adjustment and progression-free survival will be performed. Adequate statistical (eg. marginal structural model) methods will be used if time-varying treatments/confounders and confounding by indication (selective prescribing) will be present. RESULTS: The registry initiated recruiting in May 2022. The estimated completion date is December 2030 upon agreement on the achievement of all the registry objectives. As of October 2022, the registry is recruiting. There will be a risk of limited representativeness due to the hospital-based nature of the registry and to the fact that hospital contributing to the registry are expert centres for these rare cancers. Clinical Follow-up could also be an issue but active search of the life status of the patients will be guaranteed.

A new cure model that corrects for increased risk of non-cancer death: analysis of reliability and robustness, and application to real-life data.

BACKGROUND: Non-cancer mortality in cancer patients may be higher than overall mortality in the general population due to a combination of factors, such as long-term adverse effects of treatments, and genetic, environmental or lifestyle-related factors. If so, conventional indicators may underestimate net survival and cure fraction. Our aim was to propose and evaluate a mixture cure survival model that takes into account the increased risk of non-cancer death for cancer patients. METHODS: We assessed the performance of a corrected mixture cure survival model derived from a conventional mixture cure model to estimate the cure fraction, the survival of uncured patients, and the increased risk of non-cancer death in two settings of net survival estimation, grouped life-table data and individual patients' data. We measured the model's performance in terms of bias, standard deviation of the estimates and coverage rate, using an extensive simulation study. This study included reliability assessments through violation of some of the model's assumptions. We also applied the models to colon cancer data from the FRANCIM network. RESULTS: When the assumptions were satisfied, the corrected cure model provided unbiased estimates of parameters expressing the increased risk of non-cancer death, the cure fraction, and net survival in uncured patients. No major difference was found when the model was applied to individual or grouped data. The absolute bias was < 1% for all parameters, while coverage ranged from 89 to 97%. When some of the assumptions were violated, parameter estimates appeared more robust when obtained from grouped than from individual data. As expected, the uncorrected cure model performed poorly and underestimated net survival and cure fractions in the simulation study. When applied to colon cancer real-life data, cure fractions estimated using the proposed model were higher than those in the conventional model, e.g. 5% higher in males at age 60 (57% vs. 52%). CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis supports the use of the corrected mixture cure model, with the inclusion of increased risk of non-cancer death for cancer patients to provide better estimates of indicators based on cancer survival. These are important to public health decision-making; they improve patients' awareness and facilitate their return to normal life.

Developing a comorbidity score in cancer patients using healthcare utilization databases during the COVID-19 pandemic: An experience from Italy.

BACKGROUND: A strong relationship has been observed between comorbidities and the risk of severe/fatal COVID-19 manifestations, but no score is available to evaluate their association in cancer patients. To make up for this lacuna, we aimed to develop a comorbidity score for cancer patients, based on the Lombardy Region healthcare databases. METHODS: We used hospital discharge records to identify patients with a new diagnosis of solid cancer between February and December 2019; 61 comorbidities were retrieved within 2 years before cancer diagnosis. This cohort was split into training and validation sets. In the training set, we used a LASSO-logistic model to identify comorbidities associated with the risk of developing a severe/fatal form of COVID-19 during the first pandemic wave (March-May 2020). We used a logistic model to estimate comorbidity score weights and then we divided the score into five classes (<=-1, 0, 1, 2-4, >=5). In the validation set, we assessed score performance by areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration plots. We repeated the process on second pandemic wave (October-December 2020) data. RESULTS: We identified 55,425 patients with an incident solid cancer. We selected 21 comorbidities as independent predictors. The first four score classes showed similar probability of experiencing the outcome (0.2% to 0.5%), while the last showed a probability equal to 5.8%. The score performed well in both the first and second pandemic waves: AUC 0.85 and 0.82, respectively. Our results were robust for major cancer sites too (i.e., colorectal, lung, female breast, and prostate). CONCLUSIONS: We developed a high performance comorbidity score for cancer patients and COVID-19. Being based on administrative databases, this score will be useful for adjusting for comorbidity confounding in epidemiological studies on COVID-19 and cancer impact.

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.

International benchmarking of childhood cancer survival by stage at diagnosis: The BENCHISTA project protocol.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown significant variation in overall survival rates from childhood cancer between countries, using population-based cancer registry (PBCR) data for all cancers combined and for many individual tumour types among children. Without accurate and comparable data on Tumour stage at diagnosis, it is difficult to define the reasons for these survival differences. This is because measurement systems designed for adult cancers do not apply to children's cancers and cancer registries often hold limited information on paediatric tumour stage and the data sources used to define it. AIMS: The BENCHISTA project aims to test the application of the international consensus "Toronto Staging Guidelines" (TG) for paediatric tumours by European and non-European PBCRs for six common paediatric solid tumours so that reliable comparisons of stage at diagnosis and survival rates by stage can be made to understand any differences. A secondary aim is to test the data availability and completeness of collection of several 'Toronto' consensus non-stage prognostic factors, treatment types given, occurrence of relapse/progression and cause of death as a descriptive feasibility study. METHODS: PBCRs will use their permitted data access channels to apply the Toronto staging guidelines to all incident cases of six solid childhood cancers (medulloblastoma, osteosarcoma, Ewings sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma and Wilms tumour) diagnosed in a consecutive three-year period within 2014-2017 in their population. Each registry will provide a de-identified patient-level dataset including tumour stage at diagnosis, with only the contributing registry holding the information that would be needed to re-identify the patients. Where available to the registry, patient-level data on 'Toronto' non-stage prognostic factors, treatments given and clinical outcomes (relapse/progression/cause of death) will be included. More than 60 PBCRs have been involved in defining the patient-level dataset items and intend to participate by contributing their population-level data. Tumour-specific on-line training workshops with clinical experts are available to cancer registry staff to assist them in applying the Toronto staging guidelines in a consistent manner. There is also a project-specific help desk for discussion of difficult cases and promotion of the CanStaging online tools, developed through the International Association of Cancer Registries, to further ensure standardisation of data collection. Country-specific stage distribution and observed survival by stage at diagnosis will be calculated for each tumour type to compare survival between countries or large geographical regions. DISCUSSION: This study will be promote and enhance the collection of standardized staging data for childhood cancer by European and non-European population-based cancer registries. Therefore, this project can be seen as a feasibility project of widespread use of Toronto Staging at a population-level by cancer registries, specifying the data sources used and testing how well standardized the processes can be. Variation in tumour stage distribution could be due to real differences, to different diagnostic practices between countries and/or to variability in how cancer registries assign Toronto stage. This work also aims to strengthen working relationships between cancer registries, clinical services and cancer-specific clinical study groups, which is important for improving patient outcomes and stimulating research.

Late mortality reduction among survivors of germ cell tumors in childhood and adolescence in Europe: A report from the PanCareSurFup cohort.

BACKGROUND: Data on late mortality from pediatric germ cell tumors (GCTs) are limited to small case series. Our population-based study aimed to investigate excess risk of death in survivors of GCT in childhood and adolescence, whether long-term mortality changed over time and by period of diagnosis. METHODS: The PanCare Childhood and Adolescent Cancer Survivor Care and Follow-Up Studies (PanCareSurFup) cohort includes 2773 five-year survivors diagnosed under 21 years of age with gonadal and extragonadal GCT (from 1940 to 2008). We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) and absolute excess risks (AERs). We fitted a Cox's model to assess the impact of treatment period. We estimated 10-year survival and calculated average percentage changes between periods of diagnosis (1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999) to assess whether late mortality decreased. RESULTS: GCT survivors had an almost four-fold excess risk of dying compared to general population. The risk of death for patients treated after 1980 was nearly halved compared to patients treated before 1980. Survivors diagnosed in 1990-1999 had a 10-year survival rate of 99%, which was 2.4% and 1.1% higher than for patients treated in 1970-1979 and 1980-1989, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest population-based study in Europe and showed a decrease in long-term mortality for survivors of GCTs in childhood and adolescence over the last decades. After the introduction of platinum compound in 1980, which is a paradigm of success compared to the previous treatments, no major changes in drug therapies have been made to treat GCTs in the last 40 years. However, GCT survivors maintain an excessive risk of death that requires long-term care.

COVID-19 outbreak in Lombardy: Impact on reducing solid cancer diagnoses in 2020.

Our aim was to analyse, on a population level, the year-long decline in cancer diagnoses in the region of Lombardy (Italy), and to characterise the tumours with the greatest reduction in diagnosis by patient age, sex and tumour stage at diagnosis. We used the health care utilisation databases of the Lombardy region to identify cancer patients' characteristics (eg, sex, age) and cancer-related information (eg, cancer site, stage at diagnosis). The frequency of new cancer diagnoses in 2019 and 2020 were compared in terms of percentage differences in undiagnosed cases. We observed two peaks in the decline in cancer diagnoses: March to May 2020 (-37%) and October to December 2020 (-19%). The decline persisted over the course of 2020 and was higher in males and patients aged 74+. Diagnoses of all four common cancers analysed (female breast, lung, colorectal and prostate) remained below pre-pandemic levels. For breast and colorectal cancers, the decline in diagnoses was high in the age groups targeted by population-based screening programmes. We observed a reduction in localised stage cancer diagnoses for all four cancers. Our data confirm that timely monitoring of cancer diagnoses and interventions to prevent disruption of routine diagnostic services are needed to mitigate the impact of emergencies on cancer patients.

Excess risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: Results from the first Italian population-based cohort.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about late effects in adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survivors is scarce. This study assessed the risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs) to identify the most common SMNs to be considered in follow-up care. METHODS: Population-based cancer registries retrospectively identified first primary tumors (between 1976 and 2013) and SMNs in AYAs (15-39 years old at their cancer diagnosis). AYA cancer survivors were those alive at least 5 years after their first cancer diagnosis. The excess risk of SMNs was measured as standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and absolute excess risk together with the cumulative incidence of SMNs. RESULTS: The cohort included 67,692 AYA cancer survivors. The excess risk of developing any SMN (SIR, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-1.7) was 60%. The excess risk of SMNs was significantly high for survivors of lymphomas; cancers of the breast, thyroid, female genital tract, digestive organs, gonads, and urinary tract; and melanomas. The cumulative incidence of all SMNs in AYA cancer survivors within 25 years of their first cancer diagnosis was approximately 10%. Subsequent tumors contributing to approximately 60% of all SMNs were breast cancer, colorectal cancer, corpus uteri cancer, and ovarian cancer in females and colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer, and lymphomas in males. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the need to personalize follow-up strategies for AYA cancer survivors.

Estimating Country-Specific Incidence Rates of Rare Cancers: Comparative Performance Analysis of Modeling Approaches Using European Cancer Registry Data.

Estimating incidence of rare cancers is challenging for exceptionally rare entities and in small populations. In a previous study, investigators in the Information Network on Rare Cancers (RARECARENet) provided Bayesian estimates of expected numbers of rare cancers and 95% credible intervals for 27 European countries, using data collected by population-based cancer registries. In that study, slightly different results were found by implementing a Poisson model in integrated nested Laplace approximation/WinBUGS platforms. In this study, we assessed the performance of a Poisson modeling approach for estimating rare cancer incidence rates, oscillating around an overall European average and using small-count data in different scenarios/computational platforms. First, we compared the performance of frequentist, empirical Bayes, and Bayesian approaches for providing 95% confidence/credible intervals for the expected rates in each country. Second, we carried out an empirical study using 190 rare cancers to assess different lower/upper bounds of a uniform prior distribution for the standard deviation of the random effects. For obtaining a reliable measure of variability for country-specific incidence rates, our results suggest the suitability of using 1 as the lower bound for that prior distribution and selecting the random-effects model through an averaged indicator derived from 2 Bayesian model selection criteria: the deviance information criterion and the Watanabe-Akaike information criterion.