Estimating complete cancer prevalence in Europe: validity of alternative vs standard completeness indexes

Frontiers in Oncology

Oncology

Luigino Dal Maso¹  Alexander Katalinic²  Leonardo Ventura³  Elena Demuru⁴  Roberta De Angelis⁴  Silvia Rossi⁴  Valerie Jooste⁵  Corrado Di Benedetto⁶  Sebastien Lamy⁷  Stefano Guzzinati⁸ 

[1] Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico (CRO), Istituto di Ricerca e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Aviano, Italy;Cancer Registry of Schleswig-Holstein, Institute for Social Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany;Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology Unit, Istituto per lo Studio, la Prevenzione e la Rete Oncologica (ISPRO), Firenze, Italy;Department of Oncology and Molecular Medicine, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy;Digestive Cancer Registry of Burgundy, Dijon University Hospital, INSERM UMR1231, Dijon, France;IT Service, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy;Tarn Cancer Registry, Claudius Regaud Institute - Center for Epidemiology and Research in Population Health (CERPOP U1295), University of Toulouse - Inserm, Toulouse, France;Veneto Cancer Registry, Azienda Zero, Padova, Italy;

关键词: cancer prevalence;    cancer registries;    cancer survivors;    cancer survivorship;    EUROCARE;    Europe;    SEER program;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fonc.2023.1114701

 received in 2022-12-02, accepted in 2023-03-24,  发布年份 2023

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

IntroductionComparable indicators on complete cancer prevalence are increasingly needed in Europe to support survivorship care planning. Direct measures can be biased by limited registration time and estimates are needed to recover long term survivors. The completeness index method, based on incidence and survival modelling, is the standard most validated approach. MethodsWithin this framework, we consider two alternative approaches that do not require any direct modelling activity: i) empirical indices derived from long established European registries; ii) pre-calculated indices derived from US-SEER cancer registries. Relying on the EUROCARE-6 study dataset we compare standard vs alternative complete prevalence estimates using data from 62 registries in 27 countries by sex, cancer type and registration time.ResultsFor tumours mostly diagnosed in the elderly the empirical estimates differ little from standard estimates (on average less than 5% after 10-15 years of registration), especially for low prognosis cancers. For early-onset cancers (bone, brain, cervix uteri, testis, Hodgkin disease, soft tissues) the empirical method may produce substantial underestimations of complete prevalence (up to 20%) even when based on 35-year observations. SEER estimates are comparable to the standard ones for most cancers, including many early-onset tumours, even when derived from short time series (10-15 years). Longer observations are however needed when cancer-specific incidence and prognosis differ remarkably between US and European populations (endometrium, thyroid or stomach).DiscussionThese results may facilitate the dissemination of complete prevalence estimates across Europe and help bridge the current information gaps.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
Copyright © 2023 Demuru, Rossi, Ventura, Dal Maso, Guzzinati, Katalinic, Lamy, Jooste, Di Benedetto, De Angelis and the EUROCARE-6 Working Group