Different etiological entities of liver cancer across populations: Implications from age-period-cohort analysis on incidence trends.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of liver cancer has shown different temporal trends across populations, while the underlying reasons remain unclear. METHODS: We examined temporal trends in the incidence of liver cancer in Hong Kong, Sweden, and the United States since the 1970s through 2021 using joinpoint regression and age-period-cohort analysis. RESULTS: The age-standardized incidence rate of liver cancer in Hong Kong steadily decreased (average annual percentage change [AAPC] -2.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.8% to -1.7% in men; AAPC -2.1%, 95%CI -3.1% to -1.1% in women) in 1983-2020. The rate in Sweden increased on average by 0.8% (95%CI 0.2% to 1.4%) per year in men and was stable in women (AAPC 0.2%, 95%CI -0.9% to 1.4%) in 1970-2021. The rate in the United States increased by 2.1% (95%CI 1.5% to 2.8%) per year in men and by 2.1% (95%CI 1.6% to 2.5%) in women in 1975-2020, but decreasing trends were noted in 2015-2020 (AAPC -6.6%, 95%CI -8.3% to -4.9% in men; AAPC -4.2%, 95%CI -7.5% to -0.5% in women). Stratified analysis by histological type showed such decrease in recent years was limited to hepatocellular carcinoma, rather than intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. We observed distinct changes in trends across age groups and different trends across birth cohorts. CONCLUSION: The incidence of liver cancer has decreased in Hong Kong but increased in Sweden and the United States since the 1980s, despite decreasing incidence in the United States since 2015. Such disparities may be explained by different etiology and implementation of preventive measures across populations.

Erratum: Patients' Attitudes to Unproven Therapies in Treating COVID-19 Merit Evaluation.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.xinn.2020.100028.].

Patients' Attitudes to Unproven Therapies in Treating COVID-19 Merit Evaluation.

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, many randomized controlled trials have been launched to test the efficacy of promising treatments. These trials will offer great promise for future treatment. However, a public health emergency calls for a balance between gathering sound evidence and granting therapeutic access to promising trial drugs as widely as possible. In an electronic survey, we found that 3.9% of the participants preferred to receive an unproven trial drug directly in the hypothetical scenario of mild COVID-19 infection. This percentage increased drastically to 31.1% and 54.2% in the hypothetical scenario of severe and extremely severe infection, respectively. Our survey indicates a likelihood of substantial receptivity of trial drugs among actual patients in severe conditions. From the perspective of deontological ethics, a trial can only be approved when potential benefits of the investigational treatment are presumed to outweigh risks, so compassionate or off-label use of investigational therapies merits evaluation.