RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Case finding was improved to the population-based method at the Isfahan Cancer Registry (ICR) during 2005-2008. However, its effects on the number of registered colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and patients' age are not investigated. Therefore, present study designed to investigate the effect of that improvement on the trend of incidence of CRC, and age of CRC cases in ICR's catchment area. METHODS: Data from the ICR were retrieved by years for 2000-2011. Annual age-standardized incidence rates (ASRs), truncated ASRs and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated for both genders. Rates were standardized based on the 2000 world standard population. Trends were analyzed, and significant change-points were identified using Joinpoint Regression software. Age of CRC cases compared between periods before and after the improvement. RESULTS: A total of 2902 CRC cases had been registered by ICR. Estimated ASRs (95% CI) for 2000 and 2011 were 3.47 (3.45, 3.50) and 10.22 (10.19, 1025) per 100,000 persons, respectively. Two significant change-points were identified (i.e., at 2003 and 2006). However, estimated average annual percent change was as 11. There was no significant difference between mean of patients' age before and after the time of improvement (P = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Trends of incidence of CRC had been rising in central Iran for males and females, during 2000-2011. It seems that the estimated slope for this trend had been partially artificial and significantly affected by the improvement of case-finding method. However, the improvement had no effect on the patients' age.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Prognostic tools are widely used in the practice of Oncology and have been developed to help stratify patients into specific risk-related grouping. We sought to apply of two such tools used for patients with early-stage breast cancer and to correlate them with actual outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective study was designed to include early-stage breast cancer cases seen from 1994 to 2014 at the Seyedoshohada Hospital in Isfahan, Iran. Information was derived from the patients' records, and indices were derived from prognostic tools. Information was analyzed using descriptive statistics and one sample t-test. RESULTS: In 233 patients, the difference between the predicted overall survival (OS) by the Adjuvant Online (AO) prognosis tools (69.28) and the observed OS (71.2) was not statistically significant (P = 0.52), and the AO prognosis tools had predicted the patients' OS correctly. In the Nottingham prognosis index (NPI), this difference in all groups except the very poor prognosis group was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant Online prognosis tools were capable of predicting the 10-year OS rate although not in all of the subgroups. The NPI was capable of distinguishing good, moderate, and poor survival rates, but this ability was not visible in more specific groups with moderate and poor prognosis.