Epidemiology of meningiomas post-Public Law 107-206: The Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act.

BACKGROUND: The current analysis follows the implementation of Public Law 107-260, the Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act, which mandated the collection of nonmalignant brain tumors. METHODS: Meningiomas were selected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program database for the years 2004 to 2011. Demographic and clinical characteristics, initial treatment patterns, and survival outcomes were evaluated using surveillance epidemiology statistical methods. RESULTS: The average annual age-adjusted incidence rate per 100,000 population was 7.62 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 7.55-7.68) for all meningiomas, 7.18 (95% CI, 7.12-7.25) for benign meningiomas, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.31-0.33) for borderline malignant meningiomas, and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.11-0.12) for malignant meningiomas. The annual rates increased for benign and borderline malignant tumors but decreased for malignant tumors. The rates for women exceeded those for men, especially for those with benign meningiomas. Black race was associated with significantly higher rates as was advancing age. Greater than 80% of tumors were located in cerebral meninges. Diagnostic confirmation through pathology occurred for approximately 50% of benign tumors, 90% of borderline malignant tumors, and 80% of malignant tumors. No initial treatment was reported for greater than 60% of benign tumors, 29% of borderline malignant tumors, or 31% of malignant tumors. The 5-year relative survival estimates for benign tumors, borderline malignant tumors, and malignant tumors were 85.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85%-86.2%), 82.3% (95% CI, 79.3%-84.8%), and 66% (95% CI, 60.6%-70.9%), respectively. Predictors of poorer survival were advanced age, being male gender, black race, no initial treatment, and malignant tumor behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The current analysis demonstrates that there is an increasing incidence of nonmalignant meningiomas, probably because of reporting learning curves associated with the implementation of Public Law 107-260. The high proportion of cases who receive no initial treatment is a survival outcome concern, especially for patients with malignant meningiomas.

Pathology Laboratory Policies and Procedures for Releasing Diagnostic Tissue for Cancer Research.

CONTEXT.­: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry program is currently evaluating the use of archival, diagnostic, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue obtained through SEER cancer registries, functioning as honest brokers for deidentified tissue and associated data. To determine the feasibility of this potential program, laboratory policies for sharing tissue for research needed to be assessed. OBJECTIVE.­: To understand the willingness of pathology laboratories to share archival diagnostic tissue for cancer research and related policies. DESIGN.­: Seven SEER registries administered a 27-item questionnaire to pathology laboratories within their respective registry catchment areas. Only laboratories that processed diagnostic FFPE specimens and completed the questionnaire were included in the analysis. RESULTS.­: Of the 153 responding laboratories, 127 (83%) responded that they process FFPE specimens. Most (n = 88; 69%) were willing to share tissue specimens for research, which was not associated with the number of blocks processed per year by the laboratories. Most laboratories retained the specimens for at least 10 years. Institutional regulatory policies on sharing deidentified tissue varied considerably, ranging from requiring a full Institutional Review Board review to considering such use exempt from Institutional Review Board review, and 43% (55 of 127) of the laboratories did not know their terms for sharing tissue for research. CONCLUSIONS.­: This project indicated a general willingness of pathology laboratories to participate in research by sharing FFPE tissue. Given the variability of research policies across laboratories, it is critical for each SEER registry to work with laboratories in their catchment area to understand such policies and state legislation regulating tissue retention and guardianship.

Research recruitment through US central cancer registries: balancing privacy and scientific issues.

Cancer registries are a valuable resource for recruiting participants for public health-oriented research, although such recruitment raises potentially competing concerns about patient privacy and participant accrual. We surveyed US central cancer registries about their policies for research contact with patients, and results showed substantial variation. The strategy used most frequently (37.5% of those that allowed patient contact), which was among the least restrictive, was for investigators to notify patients' physicians and then contact patients with an opt-out approach. The most restrictive strategy was for registry staff to obtain physician permission and contact patients with an opt-in approach. Population-based studies enhance cancer control efforts, and registry policies can affect researchers' ability to conduct such studies. Further discussion about balanced recruitment approaches that protect patient privacy and encourage beneficial research is needed.

Are cancer registries unconstitutional?

Population-based cancer registration, mandated throughout the United States, is central to quantifying the breadth and impact of cancer. It facilitates research to learn what causes cancer to develop and, in many cases, lead to death. However, as concerns about privacy increase, cancer registration has come under question. Recently, its constitutionality was challenged on the basis of 1) the vagueness of statutory aims to pursue public health versus the individual privacy interests of cancer patients, and 2) the alleged indignity of one's individual medical information being transmitted to government authorities. Examining cancer registry statutes in states covered by the US National Cancer Institute's SEER Program and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries, we found that cancer registration laws do state specific public health benefits, and offer reasonable limits and safeguards on the government's possession of private medical information. Thus, we argue that cancer registration would survive constitutional review, is compatible with the civil liberties protected by privacy rights in the U.S., satisfies the conditions that justify public health expenditures, and serves human rights to enjoy the highest attainable standards of health, the advances of science, and the benefits of government efforts to prevent and control disease.