Breast cancer incidence and mortality, by age, stage and molecular subtypes, by race/ethnicity in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) characteristics and outcomes in Canada related to race/ethnicity are not currently documented. METHODS: Age-specific and age-standardized BC incidence and mortality rates, age distribution of cases, proportions of stage, and molecular subtypes were calculated for women aged 20+, by race/ethnicity, using 2006 and 2011 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort databases of linked census, cancer, and death data. RESULTS: In 47 105 BC cases, age-specific incidence rates were higher in Filipina (rate ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95%CI, 1.11-1.46) and multiethnicity (RR = 1.57, 95% CI, 1.18-2.08) compared to White women aged 40-49; and Filipina (RR = 1.16, 95% CI, 1.02-1.31) and Arab (RR = 1.3, 95% CI, 1.02-1.65) women aged 50-59. Median age at diagnosis was 63 among White women and 52-60 among other race/ethnicity groups, with 22.4%-41.1% of cases (P < .001) diagnosed before age 50 compared to 16.6% among White women. BC was diagnosed at stage I less frequently among Filipina (38.6%), Black (39.2%), South Asian (40.6%), and First Nations (40.7%) compared to White (46.5%) and Chinese (49.6%) (P < .05) women. Black women had higher proportions of BC diagnoses at stages III and IV combined (26.3%) than White women (17.0%, P = .001). The proportion of triple-negative BC among Black women (20.5%) was higher than among White (9.5%, P < .001). Compared to White, age-specific BC mortality rates were higher among Black women aged 40-49 (RR = 1.4, 1.06-1.85) as well as First Nations (RR = 1.21, 1.01-1.45) and Métis (RR = 1.48, 1.15-1.91) women aged 60-69. INTERPRETATION: Compared to White women, other Canadian women had an earlier peak age of BC diagnosis and higher proportions of cases diagnosed under age 50. Although many race/ethnicity groups had lower BC incidence and mortality than White, the higher age-specific BC mortality among Black 40-49 and First Nations and Métis women 60-69 merits further investigation.

Incidence of Breast Cancer in Younger Women: A Canadian Trend Analysis.

Purpose: Breast cancer (BC) incidence is increasing globally. Age-specific BC incidence trend analyses are lacking for women under age 50 in Canada. In this study, we evaluate the incidence trends in breast cancer in women under age 50 in Canada and compare them with corresponding trends among women 50 to 54. Methods: BC case counts were obtained from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System (1984-1991) and the Canadian Cancer Registry (1992-2019) both housed at Statistics Canada. Population data were also obtained from Statistics Canada. Annual female BC age-specific incidence rates from 1984 to 2019 were derived for the following age groups: 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 40 to 44, 45 to 49, and 50 to 54. Changes in trends in age-specific BC incidence rates, if any, and annual percent changes (APCs) for each identified trend, were determined using JoinPoint. Results: Statistically significant increasing trends in BC incidence rates were noted for almost all age groups: since 2001 for 20 to 29 (APC = 3.06%, P < .001); since 2009 for 30 to 39 (APC = 1.25%, P = .007); since 1984 for both 40 to 49 (APC = 0.26%, P < .001) and 40 to 44 (APC = 0.19%, P = .011), increased since 2015 for 40 to 49 (APC = 0.77%, P = .047); and since 2005 for 50 to 54 (APC = 0.38%, P = .022). Among women 45 to 49 there was a non-significant increase since 2005 (APC = 0.24, P = .058). Statistically significant average annualized increases in BC incidence rates were observed for each age group studied. Conclusions: Examining age-specific incidence rates formed a more complete picture of BC time trends with significant increasing trends in the incidence of BC among women in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and early 50s. A greater awareness regarding the increasing number of cases of BC in women younger than 50 is critical to allow for earlier diagnosis with its resultant reduced mortality and morbidity.

Lung cancer screening primer: Key information for primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To review new evidence reported since the 2016 publication of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care recommendations and to summarize key facets of lung cancer screening to better equip primary care providers (PCPs) in anticipation of wider implementation of the recommendations. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A new, large randomized controlled trial has been published since 2016, as have updates from 4 other trials. PubMed was searched for studies published between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2020, using search words including lung cancer screening eligibility, lung cancer screening criteria, and lung cancer screening guidelines. All information from peer-reviewed articles, reference lists, books, and websites was considered. MAIN MESSAGE: Lung cancers diagnosed at stage 4 have a 5-year survival rate of only 5% and have a disproportionate impact on those with lower socioeconomic status, rural populations, and Indigenous populations. By downstaging, or diagnosing lung cancers at an earlier and more treatable stage, lung cancer screening reduces mortality with a number needed to screen of 250 to prevent 1 death. Practical aspects of lung cancer screening are reviewed, including criteria to screen, appropriate low-dose computed tomography screening, and management of findings. Harms of screening, such as overdiagnosis and incidental findings, are discussed to allow PCPs to appropriately counsel their patients in the face of ongoing implementation of new lung cancer screening programs. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer screening, with its embedded emphasis on smoking cessation, is an excellent addition to PCPs' preventive health care tools. The implementation of formal and pilot lung cancer screening programs across Canada means that PCPs will be increasingly required to counsel their patients around the uptake of lung cancer screening.

Breast Cancer Survivorship Tool: Facilitating breast cancer survivorship care for family physicians and patients.

OBJECTIVE: To create an evidence-based national Breast Cancer Survivorship (BCS) Tool that facilitates appropriate care of breast cancer patients by primary care providers after patients have completed adjuvant therapy. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: MEDLINE and PubMed were searched from 2002 to 2018 with the key words breast cancer, survivorship, survivorship care plan, guideline, review, meta-analysis, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, treatment complications, adverse effects, late effects, screening, health promotion, and follow up care. National or provincial cancer care organization guidelines were also reviewed. Evidence was graded as level I, II, or III. MAIN MESSAGE: The BCS Tool provides an evidence-based template to ensure seamless transitions of care from cancer centres to primary care. Four steps of survivorship care are outlined in this article: care knowledge and coordination, cancer surveillance, management of long-term side effects of treatment, and health promotion. CONCLUSION: The BCS Tool will support primary care providers in ensuring breast cancer survivors receive high-quality, evidence-based care.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals. METHODS: Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

Colorectal cancer screening for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer or adenomas.

OBJECTIVE: To review and summarize the recently developed Canadian Association of Gastroenterology screening recommendations for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) or adenoma from a family medicine perspective. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to synthesize knowledge regarding family history and CRC. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched with the following MeSH terms: colorectal cancers or neoplasms, screen or screening or surveillance, and family or family history. Known hereditary syndromes were excluded. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to establish certainty in reviewed evidence. Most recommendations are conditional recommendations with very low-quality evidence. MAIN MESSAGE: Individuals who have 1 first-degree relative (FDR) with CRC or an advanced adenoma diagnosed at any age are recommended to undergo colonoscopy every 5 to 10 years starting at age 40 to 50 years or 10 years younger than the age at diagnosis of the FDR, although fecal immunochemical testing at an interval of every 1 to 2 years can be used. Individuals with FDRs with non-advanced adenomas or a history of CRC in second-degree relatives should be screened according to average-risk guidelines. Lifestyle modification can statistically significantly decrease risk of CRC and should be considered in all patients. CONCLUSION: These guidelines acknowledge the many factors that can increase an individual's risk of developing CRC and allow for judgment to be employed depending on the clinical scenario. Lifestyle advice already given to patients for weight, blood pressure, and heart disease management will reduce the risk of CRC if implemented, and this combined with more targeted screening for higher-risk individuals will hopefully be successful in decreasing CRC mortality in Canada.