Vulvar squamous cell carcinoma in women 80 years and older: Treatment, survival and impact of comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a disease of mainly older women, little is known about the clinical management of older women with vulvar squamous cell carcinoma (VSCC). We evaluated their daily clinical management compared with younger women, and established the prevalence of comorbidities and its impact on overall survival (OS). METHODS: All Dutch women diagnosed with VSCC from 2015 to 2020 (n = 2249) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Women aged ≥80 years (n = 632, 28%) were defined as "older" patients, women <80 years were considered as "younger". Chi-square tests were performed to evaluate differences in treatment by age group and comorbidities. Differences in OS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier Curves and log-rank test. RESULTS: The vast majority of both older (91%) and younger (99%) patients with FIGO IA VSCC received surgical treatment of the vulva. Older FIGO IB-IV VSCC patients were less likely to undergo groin surgery than younger patients (50% vs. 84%, p < 0.01). Performance of surgical treatment of the vulva and groin(s) was not associated with the number of comorbidities in older patients (p = 0.67 and p = 0.69). Older patients with ≥2 comorbidities did have poorer OS compared to women with one or no comorbidities (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of older patients underwent vulvar/local surgery. Older patients less often received groin surgery compared to younger patients. The majority of older patients had at least one comorbidity, but this did not impact treatment choice. The poorer survival in older VSCC patients may therefore be due to death of competing risks instead of VSCC itself.

The association between hospital variation in curative treatment for esophagogastric cancer and health-related quality of life and survival.

BACKGROUND: As previous studies showed significant hospital variation in curative treatment of esophagogastric cancer, this study assesses the association between this variation and overall, cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival, and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with potentially curable esophageal or gastric cancer between 2015 and 2018 as registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry were included. Data on overall survival was available for all patients, data on cancer-specific and recurrence-free survival and HRQoL was available for subgroups. Patients were classified according to diagnosis in hospitals with low, medium or high probability of treatment with curative intent (LP, MP or HP). Multivariable models were used to assess the association between LP, MP and HP hospitals and HRQoL and survival. RESULTS: This study includes 7,199 patients with esophageal, and 2,407 with gastric cancer. Overall and cancer-specific survival was better for patients diagnosed in HP versus LP hospitals for both esophageal (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.77-0.88 and HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.75-0.91, respectively), and gastric cancer (HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.73-0.92 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI:0.64-0.87, respectively). These differences disappeared after adjustments for treatment. Recurrence-free survival was worse for gastric cancer patients diagnosed in HP hospitals (HR = 1.50, 95%CI:1.14-1.96), which disappeared after adjustment for radicality of surgery. Minor, but no clinically relevant, differences in HRQoL were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed in hospitals with a high probability of treatment with curative intent have a better overall and cancer-specific but not recurrence-free survival, while minor differences in HRQoL were observed.

Pros and cons of streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems to future-proof oncological multidisciplinary team meetings.

Introduction: Nowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed. Results: Thirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice. Conclusion: To make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Sex differences in treatment allocation and survival of potentially curable gastroesophageal cancer: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Although curative treatment options are identical for male and female gastroesophageal cancer patients, access to care and survival may vary. This study aimed to compare treatment allocation and survival between male and female patients with potentially curable gastroesophageal cancer. METHODS: Nationwide cohort study including all patients with potentially curable gastroesophageal squamous cell or adenocarcinoma diagnosed between 2006 and 2018 registered in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The main outcome, treatment allocation, was compared between male and female patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Additionally, 5-year relative survival with relative excess risk (RER), that is, adjusted for the normal life expectancy, was compared. RESULTS: Among 27,496 patients (68.8% men), most were allocated to curative treatment (62.8%), although rates dropped to 45.6%>70 years. Curative treatment rates were comparable among younger male and female patients (≤70 years) with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, while older females with EAC were less frequently allocated to curative treatment than males (OR = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.99). For those allocated to curative treatment, relative survival was superior for female patients with EAC (RER = 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96) and ESCC (RER = 0.82, 95% CI 0.75-0.91), and comparable for males and females with GAC (RER = 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: While curative treatment rates were comparable between younger male and female patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, treatment disparities were present between older patients. When treated, the survival of females with EAC and ESCC was superior to males. The treatment and survival gaps between male and female patients with gastroesophageal cancer warrant further exploration and could potentially improve treatment strategies and survival.

Number of life-years lost at the time of diagnosis and several years post-diagnosis in patients with solid malignancies: a population-based study in the Netherlands, 1989-2019.

Background: Loss of life expectancy (LOLE) may provide more intuitive information on the impact of cancer than relative survival over a fixed time horizon (e.g., 5-year relative survival). We aimed to assess the evolution of the LOLE using a nationwide, population-based cohort including patients diagnosed with one of 17 most frequent solid malignancies. Methods: From the Netherlands Cancer Registry, we selected adult patients diagnosed with one of the 17 most frequent solid malignancies in the Netherlands during 1989-2019, with survival follow-up until 2022. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate the LOLE at diagnosis and the LOLE after surviving several years post-diagnosis (conditional LOLE; CLOLE) by cancer type, calendar year, age, sex, and disease stage. Findings: For all cancers combined, the LOLE consistently decreased from 1989 to 2019. This decrease was most pronounced for males with prostate cancer (e.g., from 6.9 [95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-7.1] to 2.7 [95% CI, 2.5-3.0] for 65-year-olds) and females with breast cancer (e.g., from 6.6 [95% CI, 6.4-6.7] to 1.9 [95% CI, 1.8-2.0] for 65-year-olds). The LOLE among patients with cancers of the head and neck or the central nervous system remained constant over time. Overall, the CLOLE showed that the life years lost among patients with cancer decreased with each additional year survived post-diagnosis. For example, the LOLE at diagnosis for 65-year-old females diagnosed with breast cancer in 2019 was 1.9 [95% CI, 1.8-2.0] compared with 1.7 [95% CI, 1.6-1.8], 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.1], and 0.5 [95% CI, 0.5-0.6] when surviving one, five, and ten years post-diagnosis, respectively. Estimates for other combinations of patient and tumour characteristics are available in a publicly available web-based application. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that the evolution of LOLE substantially varies across cancer type, age, and disease stage. LOLE estimates help patients better understand the impact of their specific cancer diagnosis on their life expectancy. Funding: None.

A federated approach to identify women with early-stage cervical cancer at low risk of lymph node metastases.

OBJECTIVE: Lymph node metastases (pN+) in presumed early-stage cervical cancer negatively impact prognosis. Using federated learning, we aimed to develop a tool to identify a group of women at low risk of pN+, to guide the shared decision-making process concerning the extent of lymph node dissection. METHODS: Women with cervical cancer between 2005 and 2020 were identified retrospectively from population-based registries: the Danish Gynaecological Cancer Database, Swedish Quality Registry for Gynaecologic Cancer and Netherlands Cancer Registry. Inclusion criteria were: squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma or adenosquamous carcinoma; The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009 IA2, IB1 and IIA1; treatment with radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node assessment. We applied privacy-preserving federated logistic regression to identify risk factors of pN+. Significant factors were used to stratify the risk of pN+. RESULTS: We included 3606 women (pN+ 11%). The most important risk factors of pN+ were lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) (odds ratio [OR] 5.16, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.59-5.79), tumour size 21-40 mm (OR 2.14, 95% CI, 1.89-2.43) and depth of invasion>10 mm (OR 1.81, 95% CI, 1.59-2.08). A group of 1469 women (41%)-with tumours without LVSI, tumour size ≤20 mm, and depth of invasion ≤10 mm-had a very low risk of pN+ (2.4%, 95% CI, 1.7-3.3%). CONCLUSION: Early-stage cervical cancer without LVSI, a tumour size ≤20 mm and depth of invasion ≤10 mm, confers a low risk of pN+. Based on an international privacy-preserving analysis, we developed a useful tool to guide the shared decision-making process regarding lymph node dissection.

Facilitators and barriers to conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological multidisciplinary team meeting.

BACKGROUND: Optimal oncological care nowadays requires discussing every patient in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM). The number of patients to be discussed is rising rapidly due to the increasing incidence and prevalence of cancer and the emergence of new multidisciplinary treatment options. This puts MDTMs under considerable time pressure. The aim of this study is therefore to identify the facilitators and barriers with regard to performing an efficient, competent and high-quality MDTM. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with Dutch medical specialists and residents participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants' professional and demographic characteristics (eg, sex, medical specialist vs resident, specialty, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen medical specialists and 19 residents were interviewed. All interviewees agreed that attending and preparing MDTMs is time-consuming and indicated the need for optimal execution in order to ensure that MDTMs remain feasible in the near future. Four themes emerged that are relevant to achieving an optimal MDTM: (1) organisational aspects; (2) participants' responsibilities and requirements; (3) competences, behaviour and team dynamics and (4) meeting content. Good organisation, a sound structure and functioning information and communication technology facilitate high-quality MDTMs. Multidisciplinary collaboration and adequate communication are essential competences for participants; a lack thereof and the existence of a hierarchy are hindering factors. CONCLUSION: Conducting an efficient, competent and high-quality oncological MDTM is facilitated and hindered by many factors. Being aware of these factors provides opportunities for optimising MDTMs, which are under pressure due to the increase in the number of patients to discuss.

The influence of multidisciplinary team meetings on treatment decisions in advanced bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the role of specialised genitourinary multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) in decision-making and identify factors that influence the probability of receiving a treatment plan with curative intent for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data relating to patients with cT2-4aN0/X-1 M0 urothelial cell carcinoma, diagnosed between November 2017 and October 2019, were selected from the nationwide, population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry ('BlaZIB study'). Curative treatment options were defined as radical cystectomy (RC) with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, chemoradiation or brachytherapy. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were used to examine the association between MDTM factors and curative treatment advice and how this advice was followed. RESULTS: Of the 2321 patients, 2048 (88.2%) were discussed in a genitourinary MDTM. Advanced age (>80 years) and poorer World Health Organization performance status (score 1-2 vs 0) were associated with no discussion (P < 0.001). Being discussed was associated with undergoing treatment with curative intent (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-4.9), as was the involvement of a RC hospital (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.09-2.65). Involvement of an academic centre was associated with higher rates of bladder-sparing treatment (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31-3.21). Patient preference was the main reason for non-adherence to treatment advice. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with MIBC, the probability of being discussed in a MDTM was associated with age, performance status and receiving treatment with curative intent, especially if a representative of a RC hospital was present. Future studies should focus on the impact of MDTM advice on survival data.

Prognosis of mucinous colon cancer is determined by histological biomarkers rather than microsatellite instability.

The prognostic value of microsatellite instability (MSI), as well as other histological characteristics such as lymphovascular invasion (LI), perineural invasion (PNI) and extramural vascular invasion (EMVI), is unclear in colorectal mucinous carcinoma (MC). This study aims to determine the relevance of these factors in MC patients and analyses the role of MSI in stage III MC patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. A cohort of 650 patients diagnosed with stages I-IV colonic MC from 2000 to 2010 was selected from PALGA, the nationwide Dutch pathology databank. Histopathology was revised and mismatch repair (MMR) status determined. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. Deficient MMR (dMMR) was found in 33% of MCs and correlated with female gender and right-sidedness, but also with lower tumour stage (stages I/II: 73.2 versus 47%; P < 0.0001) and the absence of EMVI (9.7 versus 23.7%; P < 0.0001) and PNI (5.6 versus 12.7%; P = 0.005). On univariate analysis OS was better for dMMR MC than for proficient MMR (pMMR) MC (median OS of 9.7 versus 5.0 years; P = 0.009), but MMR status was no longer a relevant prognostic factor on multivariate analysis [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.70-1.18]. Stage III MC patients benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy, and dMMR status was associated with better OS in this group (HR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.13-0.94). EMVI, LI and PNI, but not MMR, status are independent prognostic factors for survival in MC patients. Stage III MC patients benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and dMMR status is associated with improved survival when adjuvant chemotherapy is given.

Overall and stage-specific survival of patients with screen-detected colorectal cancer in European countries: A population-based study in 9 countries.

Background: An increasing proportion of colorectal cancers (CRCs) are detected through screening due to the availability of organised population-based programmes. We aimed to analyse survival probabilities of patients with screen-detected CRC in European countries. Methods: Data from CRC patients were obtained from 16 population-based cancer registries in nine European countries. We included patients with cancer diagnosed from the year organised CRC screening programmes were introduced until the most recent year with available data at the time of analysis, whose ages at diagnosis fell into the age groups targeted by screening. Patients were followed up with regards to vital status until 2016-2020 across the various countries. Overall and CRC-specific survival were analysed by mode of detection and stage at diagnosis for all countries combined and for each country separately using the Kaplan-Meier method. Findings: We included data from 228 134 patients, of whom 134 597 (aged 60-69 years at diagnosis targeted by screening in all countries) were considered in analyses for all countries combined. 22·3% (38 080/134 597) of patients had cancer detected through screening. Most screen-detected cancers were found at stages I-II (65·6% [12 772/19 469 included in stage-specific analyses]), while the majority of non-screen-detected cancers were found at stages III-IV (56·4% [31 882/56 543 included in stage-specific analyses]). Five-year overall and CRC-specific survival rates for patients with screen-detected cancer were 83·4% (95% CI 82·9-83·9) and 89·2% (88·8-89·7), respectively; for patients with non-screen-detected cancer, they were much lower (57·5% [57·2-57·8] and 65·7% [65·4-66·1], respectively). The favourable survival of patients with screen-detected cancer was also seen within each stage - five-year overall survival rates for patients with screen-detected stage I, II, III, and IV cancers were 92.4% (95% CI 91·6-93·1), 87·9% (86·6-89·1), 80·7% (79·3-82·0), and 32·3 (29·4-35·2), respectively. These patterns were also consistently seen for each individual country. Interpretation: Patients with cancer diagnosed at screening have a very favourable prognosis. In the rare case of detection of advanced stage cancer, survival probabilities are still much higher than those commonly reported for all patients regardless of mode of detection. Although these results cannot be taken to quantify screening effects, they provide useful and encouraging information for patients with screen-detected CRC and their physicians. Funding: This study was supported in part by grants from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the German Cancer Aid.

Impact of Age on Multimodality Treatment and Survival in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients.

Background: Optimal treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer is neoadjuvant (chemo)radiation followed by radical surgery. This is challenging in the aging population because of frequently concomitant comorbidity. We analyzed whether age below and above 70 years is associated with differences in treatment strategy and outcome in this population-based study. Methods: Data between 2008 and 2016 were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry with follow-up until 2021. Differences in therapy, referral and outcome were analyzed using χ2 tests, multivariable logistic regression and relative survival analysis. Results: In total, 6524 locally advanced rectal cancer patients were included. A greater proportion of patients <70 years underwent resection compared to older patients (89% vs. 71%). Patients ≥70 years were more likely treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy (OR 3.4, 95% CI 2.61−4.52), than with chemoradiation (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.23−0.37) and less often referred to higher volume hospitals for resection (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51−0.87). Five-year relative survival after resection following neoadjuvant therapy was comparable and higher for both patients <70 years and ≥70 years (82% and 77%) than after resection only. Resection only was associated with worse survival in the elderly compared to younger patients (56% vs. 75%). Conclusion: Elderly patients with locally advanced rectal cancer received less intensive treatment and were less often referred to higher volume hospitals for surgery. Relative survival was good and comparable after optimal treatment in both age groups. Effort is necessary to improve guideline adherence, and multimodal strategies should be tailored to age, comorbidity and performance status.

Preparing tomorrow's medical specialists for participating in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: perceived barriers, facilitators and training needs.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal treatment plan for patients with cancer is discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Effective meetings require all participants to have collaboration and communication competences. Participating residents (defined as qualified doctors in training to become a specialist) are expected to develop these competences by observing their supervisors. However, the current generation of medical specialists is not trained to work in multidisciplinary teams; currently, training mainly focuses on medical competences. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators among residents with respect to learning how to participate competently in MDTMs, and to identify additional training needs regarding their future role in MDTMs, as perceived by residents and specialists. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch residents and medical specialists participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants' demographic and professional characteristics (e.g. sex, specialty, training duration, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Nineteen residents and 16 specialists were interviewed. Three themes emerged: 1) awareness of the educational function of MDTMs among specialists and residents; 2) characteristics of MDTMs (e.g. time constraints, MDTM regulations) and 3) team dynamics and behaviour. Learning to participate in MDTMs is facilitated by: specialists and residents acknowledging the educational function of MDTMs beyond their medical content, and supervisors fulfilling their teaching role and setting conditions that enable residents to take a participative role (e.g. being well prepared, sitting in the inner circle, having assigned responsibilities). Barriers to residents' MDTM participation were insufficient guidance by their supervisors, time constraints, regulations hindering their active participation, a hierarchical structure of relations, unfamiliarity with the team and personal characteristics of residents (e.g. lack of confidence and shyness). Interviewees indicated a need for additional training (e.g. simulations) for residents, especially to enhance behavioural and communication skills. CONCLUSION: Current practice with regard to preparing residents for their future role in MDTMs is hampered by a variety of factors. Most importantly, more awareness of the educational purposes of MDTMs among both residents and medical specialists would allow residents to participate in and learn from oncological MDTMs. Future studies should focus on collaboration competences.

Factors influencing the quality and functioning of oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: results of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Discussing patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) is customary in cancer care worldwide and requires a significant investment in terms of funding and time. Efficient collaboration and communication between healthcare providers in all the specialisms involved is therefore crucial. However, evidence-based criteria that can guarantee high-quality functioning on the part of MDTMs are lacking. In this systematic review, we examine the factors influencing the MDTMs' efficiency, functioning and quality, and offer recommendations for improvement. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases (01-01-1990 to 09-11-2021), using different descriptions of 'MDTM' and 'neoplasm' as search terms. Inclusion criteria were: quality of MDTM, functioning of MDTM, framework and execution of MDTM, decision-making process, education, patient advocacy, patient involvement and evaluation tools. Full text assessment was performed by two individual authors and checked by a third author. RESULTS: Seventy-four articles met the inclusion criteria and five themes were identified: 1) MDTM characteristics and logistics, 2) team culture, 3) decision making, 4) education, and 5) evaluation and data collection. The quality of MDTMs improves when the meeting is scheduled, structured, prepared and attended by all core members, guided by a qualified chairperson and supported by an administrator. An appropriate amount of time per case needs to be established and streamlining of cases (i.e. discussing a predefined selection of cases rather than discussing every case) might be a way to achieve this. Patient centeredness contributes to correct diagnosis and decision making. While physicians are cautious about patients participating in their own MDTM, the majority of patients report feeling better informed without experiencing increased anxiety. Attendance at MDTMs results in closer working relationships between physicians and provides some medico-legal protection. To ensure well-functioning MDTMs in the future, junior physicians should play a prominent role in the decision-making process. Several evaluation tools have been developed to assess the functioning of MDTMs. CONCLUSIONS: MDTMs would benefit from a more structured meeting, attendance of core members and especially the attending physician, streamlining of cases and structured evaluation. Patient centeredness, personal competences of MDTM participants and education are not given sufficient attention.

Proportion and stage distribution of screen-detected and non-screen-detected colorectal cancer in nine European countries: an international, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of recently implemented colorectal cancer screening programmes in Europe on colorectal cancer mortality will take several years to be fully known. We aimed to analyse the characteristics and parameters of screening programmes, proportions of colorectal cancers detected through screening, and stage distribution in screen-detected and non-screen-detected colorectal cancers to provide a timely assessment of the potential effects of screening programmes in several European countries. METHODS: We conducted this population-based study in nine European countries for which data on mode of detection were available (Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Spain). Data from 16 population-based cancer registries were included. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with colorectal cancer from the year that organised colorectal cancer screening programmes were implemented in each country until the latest year with available data at the time of analysis, and if their age at diagnosis fell within the age groups targeted by the programmes. Data collected included sex, age at diagnosis, date of diagnosis, topography, morphology, clinical and pathological TNM information based on the edition in place at time of diagnosis, and mode of detection (ie, screen detected or non-screen detected). If stage information was not available, patients were not included in stage-specific analyses. The primary outcome was proportion and stage distribution of screen-detected versus non-screen detected colorectal cancers. FINDINGS: 228 667 colorectal cancer cases were included in the analyses. Proportions of screen-detected cancers varied widely across countries and regions. The highest proportions (40-60%) were found in Slovenia and the Basque Country in Spain, where FIT-based programmes were fully rolled out, and participation rates were higher than 50%. A similar proportion of screen-detected cancers was also found for the Netherlands in 2015, where participation was over 70%, even though the programme had not yet been fully rolled out to all age groups. In most other countries and regions, proportions of screen-detected cancers were below 30%. Compared with non-screen-detected cancers, screen-detected cancers were much more often found in the distal colon (range 34·5-51·1% screen detected vs 26·4-35·7% non-screen detected) and less often in the proximal colon (19·5-29·9% screen detected vs 24·9-32·8% non-screen detected) p≤0·02 for each country, more often at stage I (35·7-52·7% screen detected vs 13·2-24·9% non-screen detected), and less often at stage IV (5·8-12·5% screen detected vs 22·5-31·9% non-screen detected) p<0·0001 for each country. INTERPRETATION: The proportion of colorectal cancer cases detected by screening varied widely between countries. However, in all countries, screen-detected cancers had a more favourable stage distribution than cancers detected otherwise. There is still much need and scope for improving early detection of cancer across all segments of the colorectum, and particularly in the proximal colon and rectum. FUNDING: Deutsche Krebshilfe.

Risk of heart failure among colon and rectal cancer survivors: a population-based case-control study.

AIMS: This population-based case-control study aims to investigate the occurrence of heart failure (HF) among colon and rectal cancer survivors compared with a cancer-free control population taking into account pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and the influence of treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Colon and rectal cancer survivors diagnosed between 2007 and 2014 were selected from a linked cohort of cancer and primary care data in the Netherlands and matched based on gender, birth year, general practitioner (GP) practice, and follow-up period to cancer-free controls. The occurrence of HF was identified based on GP recorded diagnoses after index date (diagnosis date for cases). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolaemia. A total of 5333 colon cancer cases and 2468 rectal cancer cases could be matched to a total of 31 204 cancer-free controls. A statistically significant increased risk of HF was seen among all cases compared with cancer-free controls (HR 1.33; 95% confidence interval: 1.12-1.59). This was also seen when analysing colon cancer and rectal cancer separately. Being diagnosed with stage IV cancer, having hypertension, or having hypercholesterolaemia statistically significantly increased the risk of HF among colon cancer. Hypertension was a statistically significant risk factor for developing HF among rectal cancer cases. CONCLUSIONS: Colon and rectal cancer survivors are at increased risk for developing HF. More awareness should be created by treating physicians and GPs for this potential increased risk in order to further improve survival.

Levothyroxine use and the risk of colorectal cancer: a large population-based case-control study.

Objective: Whether an association between oral levothyroxine use, leading to supraphysiological exposure of the colon to thyroid hormones, and risk of colorectal cancer exists in humans is unclear. We therefore aimed to assess whether the use of levothyroxine is associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer in a linked cohort of pharmacy and cancer data. Design: Population-based matched case-control study. Methods: A total of 28,121 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer between 1998 and 2014 were matched to 106,086 controls. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the association between levothyroxine use and occurrence of colorectal cancer, adjusted for potential confounders. Results were stratified by gender, age, tumour subtype, and staging, as well as treatment duration and dosing. Results: A total of 1066 colorectal cancer patients (4%) and 4024 (4%) controls had used levothyroxine at any point before index date (adjusted odds ratio 0.95 (0.88-1.01)). Long-term use of levothyroxine was seen in 323 (30%) colorectal cancer patients and 1111 (28%) controls (adjusted odds ratio 1.00 (0.88-1.13)). Stratification by tumour subsite showed a borderline significant risk reduction of rectal cancer, while this was not seen for proximal colon cancer or distal colon cancer. There was no relationship with treatment duration or with levothyroxine dose. Conclusions: In this study, no reduced risk of colorectal cancer was seen in levothyroxine users. When stratifying by tumour subsite, a borderline significant risk reduction of rectal cancer was found and may warrant further research.

Sex differences in tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of gastric and esophageal cancer surgery: nationwide cohort data from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit.

BACKGROUND: Sex differences in clinicopathological characteristics, treatment, and postoperative outcomes of gastric and esophageal cancer are largely undefined. This study aimed to compare tumor and treatment characteristics and outcomes of gastric and esophageal cancer surgery between male and female patients. METHODS: Patients after elective surgery for primary esophageal (EAC) or gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit between 2011 and 2016 were included. The primary endpoint, 5-year relative survival with relative excess risk (RER), i.e., adjusted for the normal life expectancy, was compared between male and female patients with EAC and GAC. RESULTS: In total, 4937 patients were included (75% male) with a mean age of 66 years. cT and cN-stages showed a similar distribution in male and female patients. In females, antrum GAC was more frequent (47% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). Female patients with EAC less frequently received neo-adjuvant treatment (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.96, p = 0.033). For GAC, less postoperative morbidity (33% vs. 38% p = 0.017) and less re-interventions (12% vs. 16%, p = 0.008) were observed in females, although they had inferior 5-year relative survival (49% vs. 56%, RER = 1.31, 95% CI 1.09-1.58, p = 0.004). No differences in relative survival of EAC were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to significant sex differences in tumor location, female patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma less frequently received neo-adjuvant therapy, and female patients with gastric adenocarcinoma had inferior relative survival. Further consideration and exploration of sex differences in surgical treatment and outcomes are necessary to improve tailored treatment and outcomes.

A population-based linked cohort of cancer and primary care data: A new source to study the management of cancer in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Insight into the management of cancer in the primary care setting is pivotal to improve early recognition and survival of cancer patients. Therefore, the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) was linked to the General Practitioner (GP) Database of the PHARMO Database Network to make this research possible. METHODS: The NCR collects tumour data on all newly diagnosed cancer patients, whereas the GP Database comprises data from electronic patient records registered by GPs. Databases were linked using a probabilistic record linkage technology. RESULTS: Through record linkage of the NCR and the GP Database, we have established a large population-based cohort (NCR-PHARMO GP cohort) of 135,868 cancer patients. Data are available on demographics, tumour characteristics, primary health care use before and after cancer diagnosis including medication use, medical conditions, laboratory tests, and referrals. Data can be used for a number of different studies, for example, to study the diagnostic pathway in the primary care setting in order to identify possibilities for early recognition. CONCLUSION: The NCR-PHARMO GP cohort provides rich data on the primary care management of cancer facilitating large-scale observational cancer research in the primary care setting. The patient-level linkage allows for long-term follow-up of cancer patients, with ongoing annual updates.