Pathology-confirmed versus non pathology-confirmed cancer diagnoses: incidence, participant characteristics, and survival.

Cancer diagnoses which are not confirmed by pathology are often under-registered in cancer registries compared to pathology-confirmed diagnoses. It is unknown how many patients have a non pathology-confirmed cancer diagnosis, and whether their characteristics and survival differ from patients with a pathology-confirmed diagnosis. Participants from the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study were followed between 1989 and 2013 for the diagnosis of cancer. Cancer diagnoses were classified into pathology-confirmed versus non pathology-confirmed (i.e., based on imaging or tumour markers). We compared participant characteristics and the distribution of cancers at different sites. Furthermore, we investigated differences in overall survival using survival curves adjusted for age and sex. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 10.7 (6.3-15.9) years, 2698 out of 14,024 participants were diagnosed with cancer, of which 316 diagnoses (11.7%) were non pathology-confirmed. Participants with non pathology-confirmed diagnoses were older, more often women, and had a lower education. Most frequently non pathology-confirmed cancer sites included central nervous system (66.7%), hepato-pancreato-biliary (44.5%), and unknown primary origin (31.2%). Survival of participants with non pathology-confirmed diagnoses after 1 year was lower compared to survival of participants with pathology-confirmed diagnoses (32.6% vs. 63.4%; risk difference of 30.8% [95% CI 25.2%; 36.2%]). Pathological confirmation of cancer is related to participant characteristics and cancer site. Furthermore, participants with non pathology-confirmed diagnoses have worse survival than participants with pathology-confirmed diagnoses. Missing data on non pathology-confirmed diagnoses may result in underestimation of cancer incidence and in an overestimation of survival in cancer registries, and may introduce bias in aetiological research.

Impact of acute-on-chronic liver failure on post-transplant survival and on kidney outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the effect of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) on patients' 1-year post-liver transplant (LT) survival. In addition, we evaluated the effect of ACLF on the development of post-LT chronic kidney disease (CKD) and early allograft dysfunction (EAD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients who underwent transplantation from 2010 to 2016 was studied. EASL-CLIF's definition of ACLF was used. The risk of post-LT death, CKD, and EAD was estimated with regression models weighted by inverse probability weighting considering the recipients' characteristics. Donor's BMI and donor risk index were included in the models as well. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients were included: 125 (67.6%) without ACLF and 60 (32.4%) with ACLF. The 1-year post-LT survival rate was 91.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 84.6-95.1%] in patients without ACLF versus 84.9% (95% CI: 73.1-91.9%) in patients with ACLF. Post-LT CKD occurred in 43 (38.7%) patients without ACLF versus 26 (52.0%) patients with ACLF. EAD occurred in 40 (32.3%) patients without ACLF versus 15 (28.8%) patients with ACLF. No effect of ACLF was found on survival (hazard ratio 1.75; 95% CI: 0.64-4.75, P = 0.272), CKD (odds ratio: 1.31; 95% CI: 0.60-2.86; P = 0.491), or EAD (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38-1.66, P = 0.473). CONCLUSION: In this study, which included mainly patients with grade 1 ACLF at the time of LT, its presence had no impact on post-LT survival or on the occurrence of CKD or EAD.