The global burden of cancer continues to increase largely because of the aging and growth of the world population alongside an increasing adoption of cancer-causing behaviors, particularly smoking, in economically developing countries. Based on the GLOBOCAN 2008 estimates, about 12.7 million cancer cases and 7.6 million cancer deaths are estimated to have occurred in 2008; of these, 56% of the cases and 64% of the deaths occurred in the economically developing world. Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among females, accounting for 23% of the total cancer cases and 14% of the cancer deaths. Lung cancer is the leading cancer site in males, comprising 17% of the total new cancer cases and 23% of the total cancer deaths. Breast cancer is now also the leading cause of cancer death among females in economically developing countries, a shift from the previous decade during which the most common cause of cancer death was cervical cancer. Further, the mortality burden for lung cancer among females in developing countries is as high as the burden for cervical cancer, with each accounting for 11% of the total female cancer deaths. Although overall cancer incidence rates in the developing world are half those seen in the developed world in both sexes, the overall cancer mortality rates are generally similar. Cancer survival tends to be poorer in developing countries, most likely because of a combination of a late stage at diagnosis and limited access to timely and standard treatment. A substantial proportion of the worldwide burden of cancer could be prevented through the application of existing cancer control knowledge and by implementing programs for tobacco control, vaccination (for liver and cervical cancers), and early detection and treatment, as well as public health campaigns promoting physical activity and a healthier dietary intake. Clinicians, public health professionals, and policy makers can play an active role in accelerating the application of such interventions globally.

/pdf/global-cancer-statistics-49zjx478re.pdf

Global cancer statistics

Estimates of the worldwide incidence and mortality from 27 cancers in 2008 have been prepared for 182 countries as part of the GLOBOCAN series published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. In this article, we present the results for 20 world regions, summarizing the global patterns for the eight most common cancers. Overall, an estimated 12.7 million new cancer cases and 7.6 million cancer deaths occur in 2008, with 56% of new cancer cases and 63% of the cancer deaths occurring in the less developed regions of the world. The most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide are lung (1.61 million, 12.7% of the total), breast (1.38 million, 10.9%) and colorectal cancers (1.23 million, 9.7%). The most common causes of cancer death are lung cancer (1.38 million, 18.2% of the total), stomach cancer (738,000 deaths, 9.7%) and liver cancer (696,000 deaths, 9.2%). Cancer is neither rare anywhere in the world, nor mainly confined to high-resource countries. Striking differences in the patterns of cancer from region to region are observed.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ijc.25516

Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008.

SOURCES AND EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION : United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly, with Scientific Annexes

Background—Although stroke and ischemic heart disease (IHD) have several well-established risk factors in common, the extent of global variation in the relative burdens of these forms of vascular disease and reasons for any observed variation are poorly understood. Methods and Results—We analyzed mortality and disability-adjusted life-year loss rates from stroke and IHD, as well as national estimates of vascular risk factors that have been developed by the World Health Organization Burden of Disease Program. National income data were derived from World Bank estimates. We used linear regression for univariable analysis and the Cuzick test for trends. Among 192 World Health Organization member countries, stroke mortality rates exceeded IHD rates in 74 countries (39%), and stroke disability-adjusted life-year loss rates exceeded IHD rates in 62 countries (32%). Stroke mortality ranged from 12.7% higher to 27.2% lower than IHD, and stroke disability-adjusted life-year loss rates ranged from 6.2% higher to 10.2% lower than IHD. Stroke burden was disproportionately higher in China, Africa, and South America, whereas IHD burden was higher in the Middle East, North America, Australia, and much of Europe. Lower national income was associated with higher relative mortality (P 0.001) and burden of disease (P 0.001) from stroke. Diabetes mellitus prevalence and mean serum cholesterol were each associated with greater relative burdens from IHD even after adjustment for national income. Conclusions—There is substantial global variation in the relative burden of stroke compared with IHD. The disproportionate burden from stroke for many lower-income countries suggests that distinct interventions may be required. (Circulation. 2011; 124:314-323.)

/pdf/international-statistical-classification-of-diseases-and-pe6kdv77i3.pdf

International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems

Estimates of the worldwide incidence and mortality from 36 cancers and for all cancers combined for the year 2018 are now available in the GLOBOCAN 2018 database, compiled and disseminated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This paper reviews the sources and methods used in compiling the cancer statistics in 185 countries. The validity of the national estimates depends upon the representativeness of the source information, and to take into account possible sources of bias, uncertainty intervals are now provided for the estimated sex- and site-specific all-ages number of new cancer cases and cancer deaths. We briefly describe the key results globally and by world region. There were an estimated 18.1 million (95% UI: 17.5-18.7 million) new cases of cancer (17 million excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) and 9.6 million (95% UI: 9.3-9.8 million) deaths from cancer (9.5 million excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) worldwide in 2018.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ijc.31937

Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods

Objectives To assess the effect of screening in terms of excess mortality in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC). Methods A total of 141,578 men aged 55-69 were randomized to systematic screening or usual care in ERSPC sections in Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. The excess number of deaths was defined as the difference between the observed number of deaths in the prostate cancer (PC) patients and the expected number of deaths up to 31 December 2006. The expected number was derived from mortality of all study participants before a diagnosis with PC adjusted for study centre, study arm and study attendance. The excess mortality rates were compared between the two study arms. Results The PC incidence was 9.25 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 5.49 per 1000 person-years in the control arm, relative risk (RR) 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-1.76). The excess mortality among men with PC was 0.29 per 1000 person-years in the intervention arm and 0.37 per 1000 person-years in the control arm; the RR for excess mortality was 0.77 (95% CI 0.55-1.08). The absolute risk reduction in the excess mortality was 0.08 per 1000 person-years. The overall mortality was not significantly different between the intervention and the control arms of the study: RR 0.99 (95% CI 0.96-1.01). Conclusions Although the reduction in excess mortality was not statistically significant, the between-arm reduction in excess mortality rate was in line with the previously reported 20% reduction in the disease-specific mortality. This finding indicates that the reduction in PC mortality in the ERSPC trial cannot be due to a bias in cause of death adjudication.

Impacts of a population-based prostate cancer screening programme on excess total mortality rates in men with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Modification of SAS macros for a more efficient analysis of relative survival rates.

Recently, 2 modeling strategies have been proposed and shown to be useful to increase precision of up-to-date cancer survival estimates and to predict cancer patient survival: modeled period analysis and modeled cohort analysis. We aimed to compare the performance of both types of modeling for providing up-to-date and precise cancer survival estimates. Data from the nationwide Finnish Cancer Registry were used to assess how well both approaches would have been able to predict 5-year relative survival of concurrently diagnosed patients if they had been applied for that purpose throughout the past decades. Analyses were carried out for 20 common forms of cancer. For each cancer, 5-year relative survival was modeled with either approach for each single calendar year from 1962 to 1997. Mean differences and mean squared differences from 5-year relative survival later observed for patients diagnosed in the 5-year period around those calendar years were calculated. Survival estimates obtained by period modeling had much lower standard errors than those obtained by cohort modeling. Furthermore, for a clear majority of cancers, period modeling on average also provided better prediction of 5-year relative survival than cohort modeling. We conclude that, although both modeling strategies have their merits and specific indications, period modeling of survival has distinct advantages for up-to-date and precise estimation of cancer survival in population-based cancer survival studies.

Period versus cohort modeling of up-to-date cancer survival.

The information on occupations obtained in Finland's 1970 census was linked with the files of the Finnish Cancer Registry from 1971 through 1980 in order to establish the occupational group-specific relative risks (RR) of lung cancer. The distribution of lung cancers into histologic types varied with the age of the patients at the time of diagnosis. When 38 high-risk occupational groups were combined, the age-specific distribution of lung cancer into histologic types did not differ significantly from the corresponding distribution for other economically active men. Of individual occupational groups, young farmers had a higher RR of small cell carcinoma than older farmers or other economically active young men. Besides their high overall lung cancer risk, miners and quarriers had a very high risk of small cell carcinoma as compared with other economically active men. Servicemen and repairmen in the metal industry had a high risk of epidermoid carcinoma. Welders had a high risk of epidermoid carcinoma, but their risk of small cell carcinoma was lower than expected. There were no other excess risks of any histologic type of lung cancer attributable to occupational factors.

https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1097-0142%2819900401%2965%3A7%3C1651%3A%3AAID-CNCR2820650733%3E3.0.CO%3B2-N

Relationship between occupation and lung cancer as analyzed by age and histologic type.

Relative survival rates are among the most commonly reported outcome measures of cancer patients. They are calculated as ratios of observed survival rates and the expected survival rates in the absence of cancer. Standard errors of relative survival rates are commonly calculated by dividing the standard error for absolute survival rates by the expected survival, without taking possible random variation of the latter into account. The aim of this study was to empirically assess the validity of these commonly reported standard errors. Using data from the nationwide Finnish Cancer Registry, the authors calculated 5- and 10-year absolute, expected, and relative survival rates for patients with 25 common forms of cancer in Finland in 1989. The authors used bootstrap analysis to empirically assess the random error of absolute and relative survival rates and then compared the results with conventionally derived estimates of standard errors. The conventional and bootstrap standard errors were closely similar for all estimates of absolute survival. By contrast, the conventional estimates of standard errors of 5- and 10-year relative survival exceeded the bootstrap estimates by up to 17% and 32%, respectively. The authors conclude that conventional derivation may substantially overestimate standard errors for relative survival.

Timo Hakulinen

Papers

Impacts of a population-based prostate cancer screening programme on excess total mortality rates in men with prostate cancer: a randomized controlled trial.

Modification of SAS macros for a more efficient analysis of relative survival rates.

Period versus cohort modeling of up-to-date cancer survival.

Relationship between occupation and lung cancer as analyzed by age and histologic type.

Substantial Overestimation of Standard Errors of Relative Survival Rates of Cancer Patients