Comparison of liver cancer incidence and survival by subtypes across seven high-income countries
30 Aug 2021-International Journal of Cancer (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)-Vol. 149, Iss: 12, pp 2020-2031
TL;DR: In this article, the authors compare liver cancer survival across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership's (ICBP) jurisdictions whilst trying to ensure that the estimates are comparable through a range of sensitivity analyses.
Abstract: International comparison of liver cancer survival has been hampered due to varying standards and degrees for morphological verification and differences in coding practices. This article aims to compare liver cancer survival across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership's (ICBP) jurisdictions whilst trying to ensure that the estimates are comparable through a range of sensitivity analyses. Liver cancer incidence data from 21 jurisdictions in 7 countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) were obtained from population-based registries for 1995-2014. Cases were categorised based on histological classification, age-groups, basis of diagnosis and calendar period. Age-standardised incidence rate (ASR) per 100 000 and net survival at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis were estimated. Liver cancer incidence rates increased over time across all ICBP jurisdictions, particularly for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with the largest relative increase in the United Kingdom, increasing from 1.3 to 4.4 per 100 000 person-years between 1995 and 2014. Australia had the highest age-standardised 1-year and 3-year net survival for all liver cancers combined (48.7% and 28.1%, respectively) in the most recent calendar period, which was still true for morphologically verified tumours when making restrictions to ensure consistent coding and classification. Survival from liver cancers is poor in all countries. The incidence of HCC is increasing alongside the proportion of nonmicroscopically verified cases over time. Survival estimates for all liver tumours combined should be interpreted in this context. Care is needed to ensure that international comparisons are performed on appropriately comparable patients, with careful consideration of coding practice variations.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors presented updated estimates of the current global burden of liver cancer (incidence and mortality) and provided predictions of the number of cases/deaths to 2040.
118 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors provided worldwide, regional and national estimates of HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) incidence using high-quality data.
Abstract: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) are the two main histological subtypes of primary liver cancer. Estimates of the burden of liver cancer by subtype are needed to facilitate development and evaluation of liver cancer control globally. We provide worldwide, regional and national estimates of HCC and iCCA incidence using high-quality data.We used population-based cancer registry data on liver cancer cases by histological subtype from 95 countries to compute the sex- and country-specific distributions of HCC, iCCA and other specified histology. Subtype distributions were applied to estimates of total liver cancer cases for 2018 from the Global Cancer Observatory. Age-standardised incidence rates (ASRs) were calculated.There were an estimated 826,000 cases of liver cancer globally in 2018: 661,000 HCC (ASR 7.3 cases per 100,000); 123,000 iCCA (ASR 1.4) and 42,000 other specified histology (ASR 0.5). HCC contributed 80% of the world total liver cancer burden followed by iCCA (14.9%) and other specified histology (5.1%). HCC rates were highest in Eastern Asia (ASR 14.8), Northern Africa (ASR 13.2) and South-Eastern Asia (ASR 9.5). Rates of iCCA were highest in South-Eastern Asia (ASR 2.9), Eastern Asia (ASR 2.0), Northern Europe, the Caribbean and Central America and Oceania (ASR all 1.8).We have shown the importance of uncovering the distinct patterns of the major subtypes of liver cancer. The use of these estimates is critical to further develop public health policy to reduce the burden of liver cancer and monitor progress in controlling HCC and iCCA globally.
68 citations
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors identify predictors and consequences of cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation in different international jurisdictions in six high-income countries, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK.
Abstract: Greater understanding of international cancer survival differences is needed. We aimed to identify predictors and consequences of cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation in different international jurisdictions in six high-income countries.Using a federated analysis model, in this cross-sectional population-based study, we analysed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK), including patients with primary diagnosis of invasive oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer during study periods from Jan 1, 2012, to Dec 31, 2017. Data were collected on cancer site, age group, sex, year of diagnosis, and stage at diagnosis. Emergency presentation was defined as diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission. Using logistic regression, we examined variables associated with emergency presentation and associations between emergency presentation and short-term mortality. We meta-analysed estimates across jurisdictions and explored jurisdiction-level associations between cancer survival and the percentage of patients diagnosed as emergencies.In 857 068 patients across 14 jurisdictions, considering all of the eight cancer sites together, the percentage of diagnoses through emergency presentation ranged from 24·0% (9165 of 38 212 patients) to 42·5% (12 238 of 28 794 patients). There was consistently large variation in the percentage of emergency presentations by cancer site across jurisdictions. Pancreatic cancer diagnoses had the highest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (46·1% [30 972 of 67 173 patients]), with the jurisdictional range being 34·1% (1083 of 3172 patients) to 60·4% (1317 of 2182 patients). Rectal cancer had the lowest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (12·1% [10 051 of 83 325 patients]), with a jurisdictional range of 9·1% (403 of 4438 patients) to 19·8% (643 of 3247 patients). Across the jurisdictions, older age (ie, 75-84 years and 85 years or older, compared with younger patients) and advanced stage at diagnosis compared with non-advanced stage were consistently associated with increased emergency presentation risk, with the percentage of emergency presentations being highest in the oldest age group (85 years or older) for 110 (98%) of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, and in the most advanced (distant spread) stage category for 98 (97%) of 101 jurisdiction-cancer site strata with available information. Across the jurisdictions, and despite heterogeneity in association size (I2=93%), emergency presenters consistently had substantially greater risk of 12-month mortality than non-emergency presenters (odds ratio >1·9 for 112 [100%] of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, with the minimum lower bound of the related 95% CIs being 1·26). There were negative associations between jurisdiction-level percentage of emergency presentations and jurisdiction-level 1-year survival for colon, stomach, lung, liver, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer, with a 10% increase in percentage of emergency presentations in a jurisdiction being associated with a decrease in 1-year net survival of between 2·5% (95% CI 0·28-4·7) and 7·0% (1·2-13·0).Internationally, notable proportions of patients with cancer are diagnosed through emergency presentation. Specific types of cancer, older age, and advanced stage at diagnosis are consistently associated with an increased risk of emergency presentation, which strongly predicts worse prognosis and probably contributes to international differences in cancer survival. Monitoring emergency presentations, and identifying and acting on contributing behavioural and health-care factors, is a global priority for cancer control.Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; the Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.
24 citations
10 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors analyzed relative 1-and 5-year survival trends in liver cancer and pancreatic cancer between years 1970 and 2019, and found that the survival gains were most likely the result of earlier diagnosis, improved treatment, and better organized supportive care.
Abstract: Liver cancer (LC) and pancreatic cancer (PC) are often diagnosed at an advanced stage resulting in high mortality. High-quality survival data are rarely available for trend analyses over a long period.The Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, and Swedish cancer data were accessed at the NORDCAN database. We analysed relative 1- and 5-year survival trends in LC and PC between years 1970 and 2019.Relative 1-year survival in LC for Nordic men and women was about 10% in the period between 1970 and 1974, and it increased moderately by year 2000 and steeply thereafter, eventually reaching 40-50%. The patterns in 5-year survival were similar, but after the year 2000, survival in Norway and Sweden increased steeply to 23%, whereas survival in Denmark and Finland lagged behind, reaching 10% to 15%. The patterns for PC also showed rapid improvement after the year 2000, with 1-year survival reaching 30% to 40% and 5-year survival reaching 10% for Finland and 15% for Norway and Sweden. Survival was best for patients diagnosed before age 50 years, and it was worst for older patients. For both cancers the difference between 1- and 5-year survival increased with time.Survival in LC and PC improved first modestly and then steeply over the 50-year period covered. The increase in 5-year survival was less than that of 1-year survival. The survival gains were most likely the result of earlier diagnosis, improved treatment, and better organised supportive care. The challenges are to keep up these positive trends, to extend survival benefits past Year 1, and to obtain similar results in elderly patients. Primary prevention through avoidance of risk factors would reduce case numbers.Liver and pancreatic cancers are among the most lethal of all cancers. In 50 years, survival in these cancers has slowly improved, and in the past 20 years, the development has been increasingly favourable. Widespread adoption of healthy lifestyles will be key to reducing the risk of these cancers.
6 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, while for many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries.
2,756 citations
TL;DR: The major advances in cancer management that occurred up to 2007 seem to have resulted in improved survival in Europe, although results for lung cancer in some regions (central and eastern Europe) might be affected by overestimation.
Abstract: Summary Background Cancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. EUROCARE—the largest cooperative study of population-based cancer survival in Europe—has shown persistent differences between countries for cancer survival, although in general, cancer survival is improving. Major changes in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation occurred in the early 2000s. EUROCARE-5 assesses their effect on cancer survival in 29 European countries. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we analysed data from 107 cancer registries for more than 10 million patients with cancer diagnosed up to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Uniform quality control procedures were applied to all datasets. For patients diagnosed 2000–07, we calculated 5-year relative survival for 46 cancers weighted by age and country. We also calculated country-specific and age-specific survival for ten common cancers, together with survival differences between time periods (for 1999–2001, 2002–04, and 2005–07). Findings 5-year relative survival generally increased steadily over time for all European regions. The largest increases from 1999–2001 to 2005–07 were for prostate cancer (73·4% [95% CI 72·9–73·9] vs 81·7% [81·3–82·1]), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (53·8% [53·3–54·4] vs 60·4% [60·0–60·9]), and rectal cancer (52·1% [51·6–52·6] vs 57·6% [57·1–58·1]). Survival in eastern Europe was generally low and below the European mean, particularly for cancers with good or intermediate prognosis. Survival was highest for northern, central, and southern Europe. Survival in the UK and Ireland was intermediate for rectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but low for kidney, stomach, ovarian, colon, and lung cancers. Survival for lung cancer in the UK and Ireland was much lower than for other regions for all periods, although results for lung cancer in some regions (central and eastern Europe) might be affected by overestimation. Survival usually decreased with age, although to different degrees depending on region and cancer type. Interpretation The major advances in cancer management that occurred up to 2007 seem to have resulted in improved survival in Europe. Likely explanations of differences in survival between countries include: differences in stage at diagnosis and accessibility to good care, different diagnostic intensity and screening approaches, and differences in cancer biology. Variations in socioeconomic, lifestyle, and general health between populations might also have a role. Further studies are needed to fully interpret these findings and how to remedy disparities. Funding Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation, Cariplo Foundation.
1,601 citations
TL;DR: Marrero, Jorge A; Kulik, Laura M; Sirlin, Claude B; Zhu, Andrew X; Finn, Richard S; Abecassis, Michael M; Roberts, Lewis R; Heimbach, Julie K as discussed by the authors.
1,357 citations
University of Tokyo1, University of Indonesia2, National Taiwan University3, Chang Gung University4, Kindai University5, Seoul National University6, University of Hong Kong7, Capital Medical University8, Yonsei University9, Aga Khan University10, Singapore General Hospital11, Seoul National University Hospital12, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research13, University of Delhi14
TL;DR: Recommendations on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma were presented at the fourth APASL single topic conference on viral-related HCC at Bali, Indonesia and approved by the participants of the conference.
Abstract: Introduction
The Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in December 2008 to develop consensus recommendations.
968 citations
TL;DR: The International Consensus Group for Hepatocellular Neoplasia (ICGHN) was convened in April 2002 in Kurume, Japan and met several times up to July 2007 and this consensus document summarizes the results of the authors' meetings.
723 citations