Trends in incidence, prevalence, and survival of breast cancer in the United Kingdom from 2000 to 2021.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in females globally. However, we know relatively little about trends in males. This study describes United Kingdom (UK) secular trends in breast cancer from 2000 to 2021 for both sexes. We describe a population-based cohort study using UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and Aurum databases. There were 5,848,436 eligible females and 5,539,681 males aged 18+ years, with ≥ one year of prior data availability in the study period. We estimated crude breast cancer incidence rates (IR), prevalence and survival probability at one-, five- and 10-years after diagnosis using the Kaplan-Meier method. Analyses were further stratified by age. Crude IR of breast cancer from 2000 to 2021 was 194.4 per 100,000 person-years for females and 1.16 for males. Crude prevalence in 2021 was 2.1% for females and 0.009% for males. Both sexes have seen around a 2.5-fold increase in prevalence across time. Incidence increased with age for both sexes, peaking in females aged 60-69 years and males 90+ . There was a drop in incidence for females aged 70-79 years. From 2003-2019, incidence increased > twofold in younger females (aged 18-29: IR 2.12 in 2003 vs. 4.58 in 2018); decreased in females aged 50-69 years; and further declined from 2015 onwards in females aged 70-89 years. Survival probability for females after one-, five-, and ten-years after diagnosis was 95.1%, 80.2%, and 68.4%, and for males 92.9%, 69.0%, and 51.3%. Survival probability at one-year increased by 2.08% points, and survival at five years increased by 5.39% from 2000-2004 to 2015-2019 for females, particularly those aged 50-70 years. For males, there were no clear time-trends for short-term and long-term survival probability. Changes in incidence of breast cancer in females largely reflect the success of screening programmes, as rates rise and fall in synchronicity with ages of eligibility for such programmes. Overall survival from breast cancer for females has improved from 2000 to 2021, again reflecting the success of screening programmes, early diagnosis, and improvements in treatments. Male breast cancer patients have worse survival outcomes compared to females, highlighting the need to develop male-specific diagnosis and treatment strategies to improve long-term survival in line with females.

Research protocol for an observational health data analysis to assess the applicability of randomized controlled trials focusing on newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer using real-world data: PIONEER IMI's "big data for better outcomes" program.

Background: Metastatic prostate cancer (PCa) constitutes ~5% of all new PCa diagnoses in Western countries. For most cases, primary consideration should be given to systemic therapies as the first-line approach based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite the importance of RCTs as the pinnacle of evidence in modern medicine, concerns have been raised about their applicability to real-life scenarios. These trials often feature participants who are younger with better performance statuses and prognoses compared to their real-world counterparts. The PIONEER project falls under the Innovative Medicine Initiative's (IMI) "Big Data for Better Outcomes" initiative, aimed at revolutionizing PCa care in Europe. The central focus lies in improving cancer-related outcomes, enhancing health system efficiency, and elevating the quality of health and social care. This study endeavours to evaluate the generalizability of RCT findings concerning newly diagnosed metastatic PCa. Methods: A systematic review of the literature will be conducted to compile patient characteristics from RCTs addressing this subject within the past decade. To create a real-world benchmark, patients with recently diagnosed metastatic PCa from a network of population-based databases will serve as a comparison group. The objective is to assess the applicability of RCT results in two ways. First, a comparison will be made between the characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa enroled in RCTs and those with the same condition included in our databases which might represent the real-world setting. Second, an evaluation will be undertaken to determine the proportion of real-world patients with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa who meet the criteria for RCT enrolment. This study will rely on extensive observational data, primarily sourced from population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims data. The study cohort is established upon routinely gathered healthcare data, meticulously mapped to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Incidence and Short-Term Survival for Common Solid Tumours in the United Kingdom: A Cohort Analysis.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly affected healthcare systems and patients. There is a need to comprehend the collateral effects of the pandemic on non-communicable diseases. We examined the impact of the pandemic on short-term survival for common solid tumours, including breast, colorectal, head and neck, liver, lung, oesophageal, pancreatic, prostate, and stomach cancer in the UK. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study of electronic health records from the UK primary care Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD database. In sum, 12,259,744 eligible patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 year's history identified from January 2000 to December 2022 were included. We estimated age-standardised incidence and short-term (one- and two-year) survival for several common cancers from 2000 to 2019 (in five-year strata) and compared these to 2020-2022 using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Incidence decreased for most cancers in 2020 and recovered to different extents in 2021-2022. Short-term survival improved for most cancers between 2000 and 2019, but then declined, albeit minimally, for those diagnosed in 2020-2022. This was most pronounced for colorectal cancer, with one-year survival falling from 78.8% (95% CI 78%-79.6%) in 2015-2019 to 77% (95% CI 75.6-78.3%) for those diagnosed in 2020-2022. Conclusion: Short-term survival for many cancers was impacted, albeit minimally, by the pandemic in the UK, with reductions in survivorship from colorectal cancer equivalent to returning to the mortality seen in the first decade of the 2000s. While data on longer-term survival are needed to fully comprehend the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care, our findings illustrate the need for an urgent and substantial commitment from the UK National Health Service to address the existing backlog in cancer screening and diagnostic procedures to improve cancer care and mortality.

Predictive Models for Assessing Patients' Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients' response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.

Research Protocol for an Observational Health Data Analysis on the Adverse Events of Systemic Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Big Data Analytics Using the PIONEER Platform.

Combination therapies in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), which include the addition of an androgen receptor signaling inhibitor and/or docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy, have been a game changer in the management of this disease stage. However, these therapies come with their fair share of toxicities and side effects. The goal of this observational study is to report drug-related adverse events (AEs), which are correlated with systemic combination therapies for mHSPC. Determining the optimal treatment option requires large cohorts to estimate the tolerability and AEs of these combination therapies in "real-life" patients with mHSPC, as provided in this study. We use a network of databases that includes population-based registries, electronic health records, and insurance claims, containing the overall target population and subgroups of patients defined by unique certain characteristics, demographics, and comorbidities, to compute the incidence of common AEs associated with systemic therapies in the setting of mHSPC. These data sources are standardised using the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model. We perform the descriptive statistics as well as calculate the AE incidence rate separately for each treatment group, stratified by age groups and index year. The time until the first event is estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method within each age group. In the case of episodic events, the anticipated mean cumulative counts of events are calculated. Our study will allow clinicians to tailor optimal therapies for mHSPC patients, and they will serve as a basis for comparative method studies.

A framework for understanding an open scientific community using automated harvesting of public artifacts.

Background: The Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) community has emerged as a leader in observational research on real-world clinical data for promoting evidence for healthcare and decision-making. The community has seen rapid growth in publications, citations, and the number of authors. Components of its successful uptake have been attributed to an open science and collaborative culture for research and development. Investigating the adoption of OHDSI as a field of study provides an opportunity to understand how communities embrace new ideas, onboard new members, and enhance their impact. Objective: To track, study, and evaluate an open scientific community's growth and impact. Method: We present a modern architecture leveraging open application programming interfaces to capture publicly available data (PubMed, YouTube, and EHDEN) on open science activities (publication, teaching, and engagement). Results: Three interactive dashboard were implemented for each publicly available artifact (PubMed, YouTube, and EHDEN). Each dashboard provides longitudinal summary analysis and has a searchable table, which differs in the available features related to each public artifact. Conclusion: We discuss the insights enabled by our approach to monitor the growth and impact of the OHDSI community by capturing artifacts of learning, teaching, and creation. We share the implications for different users based on their functional needs. As other scientific networks adopt open-source frameworks, our framework serves as a model for tracking the growth of their community, driving the perception of their development, engaging their members, and attaining higher impact.

Similar Risk of Kidney Failure among Patients with Blinding Diseases Who Receive Ranibizumab, Aflibercept, and Bevacizumab: An Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics Network Study.

PURPOSE: To characterize the incidence of kidney failure associated with intravitreal anti-VEGF exposure; and compare the risk of kidney failure in patients treated with ranibizumab, aflibercept, or bevacizumab. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study across 12 databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) network. SUBJECTS: Subjects aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 3 monthly intravitreal anti-VEGF medications for a blinding disease (diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, exudative age-related macular degeneration, or retinal vein occlusion). METHODS: The standardized incidence proportions and rates of kidney failure while on treatment with anti-VEGF were calculated. For each comparison (e.g., aflibercept versus ranibizumab), patients from each group were matched 1:1 using propensity scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the risk of kidney failure while on treatment. A random effects meta-analysis was performed to combine each database's hazard ratio (HR) estimate into a single network-wide estimate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of kidney failure while on anti-VEGF treatment, and time from cohort entry to kidney failure. RESULTS: Of the 6.1 million patients with blinding diseases, 37 189 who received ranibizumab, 39 447 aflibercept, and 163 611 bevacizumab were included; the total treatment exposure time was 161 724 person-years. The average standardized incidence proportion of kidney failure was 678 per 100 000 persons (range, 0-2389), and incidence rate 742 per 100 000 person-years (range, 0-2661). The meta-analysis HR of kidney failure comparing aflibercept with ranibizumab was 1.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.47; P = 0.45), ranibizumab with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.68-1.32; P = 0.62), and aflibercept with bevacizumab 0.95 (95% CI, 0.65-1.39; P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: There was no substantially different relative risk of kidney failure between those who received ranibizumab, bevacizumab, or aflibercept. Practicing ophthalmologists and nephrologists should be aware of the risk of kidney failure among patients receiving intravitreal anti-VEGF medications and that there is little empirical evidence to preferentially choose among the specific intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.