Completeness of regional cancer registry data in Northwest Russia 2008-2017.

BACKGROUND: A national framework for population-based cancer registration was established in Russia in the late 1990s. Data comparability and validity analyses found substantial differences across ten population-based cancer registries (PBCRs)in Northwest Russia, and only four out of ten met international standards. This study aimed to assess the completeness of the PBCR data of those registries. METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative methods recommended for completeness and timeliness assessment were applied to the data from ten Russian regional PBCRs in Northwest Russia, covering a population of 13 million. We used historic data methods (using several European PBCRs reference rates), mortality-to-incidence ratios (M:I) comparison, and death certificate methods to calculate the proportion of unregistered cases (Lincoln-Petersen estimator and Ajiki formula). RESULTS: Incidence rate trends of different cancer types were stable over time (except one region - Leningrad oblast). A slight drop in incidence rates in older age groups for several sites in the Northwestern regions was observed compared to the reference from European countries. Comparing M:I ratios against five-year survival revealed systematic differences in Leningrad oblast and Vologda oblast. Assessment of completeness revealed low or unrealistic estimates in Leningrad oblast and completeness below 90% in St. Petersburg. In other regions, the completeness was above 90%. The national annual report between 2008-2017 did not include about 10% of the cases collected later in the registry database of St. Petersburg. This difference was below 3% for Arkhangelsk oblast, Murmansk oblast, Novgorod oblast, Vologda oblast and the Republic of Karelia. CONCLUSIONS: Eight out of ten regional PBCRs in Northwest Russia collected data with an acceptable degree of completeness. Mostly populated St. Petersburg and Leningrad oblast did not reach such completeness. PBCR data from several regions in Northwest Russia are suitable for epidemiological research and monitoring cancer control activities.

COVID-19 pandemic in Saint Petersburg, Russia: Combining population-based serological study and surveillance data.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic in Russia has already resulted in 500,000 excess deaths, with more than 5.6 million cases registered officially by July 2021. Surveillance based on case reporting has become the core pandemic monitoring method in the country and globally. However, population-based seroprevalence studies may provide an unbiased estimate of the actual disease spread and, in combination with multiple surveillance tools, help to define the pandemic course. This study summarises results from four consecutive serological surveys conducted between May 2020 and April 2021 at St. Petersburg, Russia and combines them with other SARS-CoV-2 surveillance data. METHODS: We conducted four serological surveys of two random samples (May-June, July-August, October-December 2020, and February-April 2021) from adults residing in St. Petersburg recruited with the random digit dialing (RDD), accompanied by a telephone interview to collect information on both individuals who accepted and declined the invitation for testing and account for non-response. We have used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay CoronaPass total antibodies test (Genetico, Moscow, Russia) to report seroprevalence. We corrected the estimates for non-response using the bivariate probit model and also accounted the test performance characteristics, obtained from independent assay evaluation. In addition, we have summarised the official registered cases statistics, the number of hospitalised patients, the number of COVID-19 deaths, excess deaths, tests performed, data from the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) surveillance, the vaccination uptake, and St. Petersburg search and mobility trends. The infection fatality ratios (IFR) have been calculated using the Bayesian evidence synthesis model. FINDINGS: After calling 113,017 random mobile phones we have reached 14,118 individuals who responded to computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and 2,413 provided blood samples at least once through the seroprevalence study. The adjusted seroprevalence in May-June, 2020 was 9.7% (95%: 7.7-11.7), 13.3% (95% 9.9-16.6) in July-August, 2020, 22.9% (95%: 20.3-25.5) in October-December, 2021 and 43.9% (95%: 39.7-48.0) in February-April, 2021. History of any symptoms, history of COVID-19 tests, and non-smoking status were significant predictors for higher seroprevalence. Most individuals remained seropositive with a maximum 10 months follow-up. 92.7% (95% CI 87.9-95.7) of participants who have reported at least one vaccine dose were seropositive. Hospitalisation and COVID-19 death statistics and search terms trends reflected the pandemic course better than the official case count, especially during the spring 2020. SARS-CoV-2 circulation showed rather low genetic SARS-CoV-2 lineages diversity that increased in the spring 2021. Local VOC (AT.1) was spreading till April 2021, but B.1.617.2 substituted all other lineages by June 2021. The IFR based on the excess deaths was equal to 1.04 (95% CI 0.80-1.31) for the adult population and 0.86% (95% CI 0.66-1.08) for the entire population. CONCLUSION: Approximately one year after the COVID-19 pandemic about 45% of St. Petersburg, Russia residents contracted the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Combined with vaccination uptake of about 10% it was enough to slow the pandemic at the present level of all mitigation measures until the Delta VOC started to spread. Combination of several surveillance tools provides a comprehensive pandemic picture.

Comparability and validity of cancer registry data in the northwest of Russia.

BACKGROUND: Despite the elaborate history of statistical reporting in the USSR, Russia established modern population-based cancer registries (PBCR) only in the 1990s. The quality of PBCRs data has not been thoroughly analyzed. This study aims at assessing the comparability and validity of cancer statistics in regions of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) of Russia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from ten Russian regional PBCRs covering ∼13 million (∼5 million in St. Petersburg) were processed in line with IARC/IACR and ENCR recommendations. We extracted and analyzed all registered cases but focused on cases diagnosed between 2008 and 2017. For comparability and validity assessment, we applied established qualitative and quantitative methods. RESULTS: Data collection in NWFD is in line with international standards. Distributions of diagnosis dates revealed higher variation in several regions, but overall, distributions are relatively uniform. The proportion of multiple primaries between 2008 and 2017 ranged from 6.7% in Vologda Oblast to 12.4% in Saint-Petersburg. We observed substantial regional heterogeneity for most indicators of validity. In 2013-2017, proportions of morphologically verified cases ranged between 61.7 and 89%. Death certificates only (DCO) cases proportion was in the range of 1-14% for all regions, except for Saint-Petersburg (up to 23%). The proportion of cases with a primary site unknown was between 1 and 3%. Certain cancer types (e.g., pancreas, liver, hematological malignancies, and CNS tumors) and cancers in older age groups showed lower validity. CONCLUSION: While the overall level of comparability and validity of PBCRs data of four out of ten regions of NWFD of Russia meets the international standards, differences between the regions are substantial. The local instructions for cancer registration need to be updated and implemented. The data validity assessment also reflects pitfalls in the quality of diagnosis of certain cancer types and patient groups.

Evaluation of the performance of SARS--CoV--2 antibody assays for a longitudinal population-based study of COVID--19 spread in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Geographical variation in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS--CoV--2) spread requires seroprevalence studies based on local tests, but robust validation is needed. We summarize an evaluation of antibody tests used in a serological study of SARS--CoV--2 in Saint Petersburg, Russia. We validated three different antibody assays: chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) Abbott Architect SARS--CoV--2 immunoglobulin G (IgG), enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) CoronaPass total antibodies test, and ELISA SARS--CoV--2--IgG--EIA--BEST. Clinical sensitivity was estimated with the SARS--CoV--2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test as the gold standard using manufacturer recommended cutoff. Specificity was estimated using pre-pandemic sera samples. The median time between positive PCR test results and antibody tests was 21 weeks. Measures of concordance were calculated against the microneutralization test (MNA).Sensitivity was equal to 91.1% (95% confidence intervbal [CI]: 78.8-97.5), 90% (95% CI: 76.4-96.4), and 63.1% (95% CI [50.2-74.7]) for ELISA Coronapass, ELISA Vector-Best, and CMIA Abbott, respectively. Specificity was equal to 100% for all the tests. Comparison of receiver operating characteristics has shown lower AUC for CMIA Abbott. The cut-off SC/O ratio of 0.28 for CMIA Abbott resulted in a sensitivity of 80% at the same level of specificity. Less than 33% of the participants with positive antibody test results had neutralizing antibodies in titers 1:80 and above. Antibody assays results and MNA correlated moderately. This study encourages the use of local antibody tests and sets the reference for seroprevalence correction. Available tests' sensitivity allows detecting antibodies within the majority of PCR- positive individuals. The Abbott assay sensitivity can be improved by incorporating a new cut-off. Manufacturers' test characteristics may introduce bias into the study results.

History and current status of cancer registration in Russia.

BACKGROUND: Russia, then part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR), introduced compulsory cancer registration in 1953, but a clear overall contemporary description of the cancer surveillance system in Russia is not available. METHODS: We summarized historical landmarks and the development of the standards of classification and coding of neoplasms in Russia and described current population-based cancer registries' (PBCR) procedures and practices. RESULTS: Cancer registration is organized according to the administrative division of the Russian Federation. More than 600,000 cases are registered annually. All medical facilities, without exception, are required to notify the PBCR about newly diagnosed cases, and each regional PBCR is responsible for registering all cancers diagnosed in citizens residing in the region. The data collection can be described as passive and exhaustive. Hematological malignancies, brain, and CNS tumors are often not referred to cancer hospitals in some regions, explaining the problems in registering these cancers. CONCLUSION: Russia's cancer registration system is population-based, and practices seem to be generally internationally comparable. However, coding practices and national guidelines are still outdated and not up to the most recent international recommendations. Further analyses are needed to assess the comparability, validity, completeness, and timeliness of Russia's PBCRs data.

Patterns in the relationship between life expectancy and gross domestic product in Russia in 2005-15: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since 2005, Russia has made substantial progress, experiencing an almost doubling of per-capita gross domestic product by purchasing power parity (GDP [PPP]) to US$24 800 and witnessing a 6-year increase in life expectancy, reaching 71·4 years by 2015. Even greater gains in GDP (PPP) were seen for Moscow, the Russian capital, reaching $43 000 in 2015 and with a life expectancy of 75·5 years. We aimed to investigate whether mortality levels now seen in Russia are consistent with what would be expected given this new level of per-capita wealth. METHODS: We used per-capita GDP (PPP) and life expectancy from 61 countries in 2014-15, plus those of Russia as a whole and its capital Moscow, to construct a Preston curve expressing the relationship between mortality and national wealth and to examine the positions of Russia and other populations relative to this curve. We adjusted life expectancy values for Moscow for underestimation of mortality at older ages. For comparison, we constructed another Preston curve based on the same set of countries for the year 2005. We used the stepwise replacement algorithm to decompose mortality differences between Russia or Moscow and comparator countries with similar incomes into age and cause-of-death components. FINDINGS: Life expectancy in 2015 for both Russia and Moscow lay below the Preston-curve-based expectations by 6·5 years and 4·9 years, respectively. In 2015, Russia had a lower per-capita income than 36 of the comparator countries but lower life expectancy than 60 comparator countries. However, the gaps between the observed and the Preston-expected life expectancy values for Russia have diminished by about 25% since 2005, when the life expectancy gap was 8·9 years for Russia and 6·6 years for Moscow. When compared with countries with similar level of income, the largest part of the life expectancy deficit was produced by working-age mortality from external causes for Russia and cardiovascular disease at older ages for Moscow. INTERPRETATION: Given the economic wealth of Russia, its life expectancy could be substantially higher. Sustaining the progress seen over the past decade depends on the ability of the Russian Government and society to devote adequate resources to people's health. FUNDING: This work was partly funded through the International Project on Cardiovascular Disease in Russia supported by a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award (100217) and was supported by the Russian Academic Excellence Project 5-100.