Rare cancers pose challenges for diagnosis, treatments, and clinical decision making. Information about rare cancers is scant. The RARECARE project defined rare cancers as those with an annual ...incidence of less than six per 100 000 people in European Union (EU). We updated the estimates of the burden of rare cancers in Europe, their time trends in incidence and survival, and provide information about centralisation of treatments in seven European countries.
We analysed data from 94 cancer registries for more than 2 million rare cancer diagnoses, to estimate European incidence and survival in 2000–07 and the corresponding time trends during 1995–2007. Incidence was calculated as the number of new cases divided by the corresponding total person-years in the population. 5-year relative survival was calculated by the Ederer-2 method. Seven registries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the Navarra region in Spain) provided additional data for hospitals treating about 220 000 cases diagnosed in 2000–07. We also calculated hospital volume admission as the number of treatments provided by each hospital rare cancer group sharing the same referral pattern.
Rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the EU during 2000–07. The overall incidence rose annually by 0.5% (99·8% CI 0·3–0·8). 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers was 48·5% (95% CI 48·4 to 48·6), compared with 63·4% (95% CI 63·3 to 63·4) for all common cancers. 5-year relative survival increased (overall 2·9%, 95% CI 2·7 to 3·2), from 1999–2001 to 2007–09, and for most rare cancers, with the largest increases for haematological tumours and sarcomas. The amount of centralisation of rare cancer treatment varied widely between cancers and between countries. The Netherlands and Slovenia had the highest treatment volumes.
Our study benefits from the largest pool of population-based registries to estimate incidence and survival of about 200 rare cancers. Incidence trends can be explained by changes in known risk factors, improved diagnosis, and registration problems. Survival could be improved by early diagnosis, new treatments, and improved case management. The centralisation of treatment could be improved in the seven European countries we studied.
The European Commission (Chafea).
The EUROCARE-5 study revealed disparities in childhood cancer survival among European countries, giving rise to important initiatives across Europe to reduce the gap. Extending its representativeness ...through increased coverage of eastern European countries, the EUROCARE-6 study aimed to update survival progress across countries and years of diagnosis and provide new analytical perspectives on estimates of long-term survival and the cured fraction of patients with childhood cancer.
In this population-based study, we analysed 135 847 children (aged 0–14 years) diagnosed during 2000–13 and followed up to the end of 2014, recruited from 80 population-based cancer registries in 31 European countries. We calculated age-adjusted 5-year survival differences by country and over time using period analysis, for all cancers combined and for major cancer types. We applied a variant of standard mixture cure models for survival data to estimate the cure fraction of patients by childhood cancer and to estimate projected 15-year survival.
5-year survival for all childhood cancer combined in Europe in 2010–14 was 81% (95% CI 81–82), showing an increase of three percentage points compared with 2004–06. Significant progress over time was observed for almost all cancers. Survival remained stable for osteosarcomas, Ewing sarcoma, Burkitt lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and rhabdomyoscarcomas. For all cancers combined, inequalities still persisted among European countries (with age-adjusted 5-year survival ranging from 71% 95% CI 60–79 to 87% 77–93). The 15-year survival projection for all patients with childhood cancer diagnosed in 2010–13 was 78%. We estimated the yearly long-term mortality rate due to causes other than the diagnosed cancer to be around 2 per 1000 patients for all childhood cancer combined, but to approach zero for retinoblastoma. The cure fraction for patients with childhood cancer increased over time from 74% (95% CI 73–75) in 1998–2001 to 80% (79–81) in 2010–13. In the latter cohort, the cure fraction rate ranged from 99% (95% CI 74–100) for retinoblastoma to 60% (58–63) for CNS tumours and reached 90% (95% CI 87–93) for lymphoid leukaemia and 70% (67–73) for acute myeloid leukaemia.
Childhood cancer survival is increasing over time in Europe but there are still some differences among countries. Regular monitoring of childhood cancer survival and estimation of the cure fraction through population-based registry data are crucial for evaluating advances in paediatric cancer care.
European Commission.
Cancer survivors—people living with and beyond cancer—are a growing population with different health needs depending on prognosis and time since diagnosis. Despite being increasingly necessary, ...complete information on cancer prevalence is not systematically available in all European countries. We aimed to fill this gap by analysing population-based cancer registry data from the EUROCARE-6 study.
In this population-based study, using incidence and follow-up data up to Jan 1, 2013, from 61 cancer registries, complete and limited-duration prevalence by cancer type, sex, and age were estimated for 29 European countries and the 27 countries in the EU (EU27; represented by 22 member states that contributed registry data) using the completeness index method. We focused on 32 malignant cancers defined according to the third edition of the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, and only the first primary tumour was considered when estimating the prevalence. Prevalence measures are expressed in terms of absolute number of prevalent cases, crude prevalence proportion (reported as percentage or cases per 100 000 resident people), and age-standardised prevalence proportion based on the European Standard Population 2013. We made projections of cancer prevalence proportions up to Jan 1, 2020, using linear regression.
In 2020, 23 711 thousand (95% CI 23 565–23 857) people (5·0% of the population) were estimated to be alive after a cancer diagnosis in Europe, and 22 347 thousand (95% CI 22 210–22 483) in EU27. Cancer survivors were more frequently female (12 818 thousand 95% CI 12 720–12 917) than male (10 892 thousand 10 785–11 000). The five leading tumours in female survivors were breast cancer, colorectal cancer, corpus uterine cancer, skin melanoma, and thyroid cancer (crude prevalence proportion from 2270 95%CI 2248–2292 per 100 000 to 301 297–305 per 100 000). Prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, urinary bladder cancer, skin melanoma, and kidney cancer were the most common tumours in male survivors (from 1714 95% CI 1686–1741 per 100 000 to 255 249–260 per 100 000). The differences in prevalence between countries were large (from 2 to 10 times depending on cancer type), in line with the demographic structure, incidence, and survival patterns. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of prevalent cases increased by 3·5% per year (41% overall), partly due to an ageing population. In 2020, 14 850 thousand (95% CI 14 681–15 018) people were estimated to be alive more than 5 years after diagnosis and 9099 thousand (8909–9288) people were estimated to be alive more than 10 years after diagnosis, representing an increasing proportion of the cancer survivor population.
Our findings are useful at the country level in Europe to support evidence-based policies to improve the quality of life, care, and rehabilitation of patients with cancer throughout the disease pathway. Future work includes estimating time to cure by stage at diagnosis in prevalent cases.
European Commission.
Management of lymphoid malignancies requires substantial health system resources. Total national health expenditure might influence population-based lymphoid malignancy survival. We studied the ...long-term survival of patients with 12 lymphoid malignancy types and examined whether different levels of national health expenditure might explain differences in lymphoid malignancy prognosis between European countries and regions.
For this observational, retrospective, population-based study, we analysed the EUROCARE-6 dataset of patients aged 15 or older diagnosed between 2001 and 2013 with one of 12 lymphoid malignancies defined according to International Classification of Disease for Oncology (third edition) and WHO classification, and followed up to 2014 (Jan 1, 2001–Dec 31, 2014). Countries were classified according to their mean total national health expenditure quartile in 2001–13. For each lymphoid malignancy, 5-year and 10-year age-standardised relative survival (ASRS) was calculated using the period approach. Generalised linear models indicated the effects of age at diagnosis, gender, and total national health expenditure on the relative excess risk of death (RER).
82 cancer registries (61 regional and 21 national) from 27 European countries provided data eligible for 10-year survival estimates comprising 890 730 lymphoid malignancy cases diagnosed in 2001–13. Median follow-up time was 13 years (IQR 13–14). Of the 12 lymphoid malignancies, the 10-year ASRS in Europe was highest for hairy cell leukaemia (82·6% 95% CI 78·9–86·5) and Hodgkin lymphoma (79·3% 78·6–79·9) and lowest for plasma cell neoplasms (29·5% 28·9–30·0). RER increased with age at diagnosis, particularly from 55–64 years to 75 years or older, for all lymphoid malignancies. Women had higher ASRS than men for all lymphoid malignancies, except for precursor B, T, or natural killer cell, or not-otherwise specified lymphoblastic lymphoma or leukaemia. 10-year ASRS for each lymphoid malignancy was higher (and the RER lower) in countries in the highest national health expenditure quartile than in countries in the lowest quartile, with a decreasing pattern through quartiles for many lymphoid malignancies. 10-year ASRS for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the most representative class for lymphoid malignancies based on the number of incident cases, was 59·3% (95% CI 58·7–60·0) in the first quartile, 57·6% (55·2–58·7) in the second quartile, 55·4% (54·3–56·5) in the third quartile, and 44·7% (43·6–45·8) in the fourth quartile; with reference to the European mean, the RER was 0·80 (95% CI 0·79–0·82) in the first, 0·91 (0·90–0·93) in the second, 0·94 (0·92–0·96) in the third, and 1·45 (1·42–1·48) in the fourth quartiles.
Total national health expenditure is associated with geographical inequalities in lymphoid malignancy prognosis. Policy decisions on allocating economic resources and implementing evidence-based models of care are needed to reduce these differences.
Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Estonian Research Council.
Rare cancers epidemiology is better known compared to the other rare diseases. Thanks to the long history of the European population-based cancer registries and to the EUROCARE huge database, the ...burden of rare cancers has been estimated the European (EU28) population. A considerable fraction of all cancers is represented by rare cancers (24%). They are a heterogeneous group of diseases, but they share similar problems: uncertainty of diagnosis, lack of therapies, poor research opportunities, difficulties in clinical trials, lack of expertise and of centres of reference. This paper analyses the major epidemiological indicators of frequency (incidence and prevalence) and outcome (5-year survival) of all rare cancers combined and of selected rare cancers that will be in depth treated in this monographic issue. Source of the results is the RARECAREnet search tool, a database publicly available. Disparities both in incidence and survival, and consequently in prevalence of rare cancers were reported across European countries. Major differences were shown in outcome: 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers together, adjusted by age and case-mix, varied from 55% or more (Italy, Germany, Belgium and Iceland) and less than 40% (Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia). Similarly, for all the analyzed rare cancers, a large survival gap was observed between the Eastern and the Nordic and Central European regions. Dramatic geographical variations were assessed for curable cancers like testicular and non epithelial ovarian cancers. Geographical difference in the annual age-adjusted incidence rates for all rare cancers together varied between >140 per 100,000 (Italy, Scotland, France, Germany, and Switzerland) and <100 (Finland, Portugal, Malta, and Poland). Prevalence, the major indicator of public health resources needs, was about 7–8 times larger than incidence. Most of rare cancers require complex surgical treatment, thus a multidisciplinary approach is essential and treatment should be provided in centres of expertise and/or in networks including expert centres. Networking is the most appropriate answer to the issues pertaining to rare cancers. Actually, in Europe, an opportunity to improve outcome and reduce disparities is provided by the creation of the European Reference Networks for rare diseases (ERNs). The Joint Action of rare cancers (JARC) is a major European initiative aimed to support the mission of the ERNs. The role of population based cancer registries still remains crucial to describe rare cancers management and outcome in the real word and to evaluate progresses made at the country and at the European level.
Head and neck cancer (HNC) is a rare disease that can affect different sites and is characterized by variable incidence and 5-year survival rates across Europe.
Multiple factors need to be considered ...when choosing the most appropriate treatment for HNC patients, such as age, comorbidities, social issues, and especially whether to prefer surgery or radiation-based protocols. Given the complexity of this scenario, the creation of a highly specialized multidisciplinary team is recommended to guarantee the best oncological outcome and prevent or adequately treat any adverse effect.
Data from literature suggest that the multidisciplinary team-based approach is beneficial for HNC patients and lead to improved survival rates. This result is likely due to improved diagnostic and staging accuracy, a more efficacious therapeutic approach and enhanced communication across disciplines. Despite the benefit of MTD, it must be noted that this approach requires considerable time, effort and financial resources and is usually more frequent in highly organized and high-volume centers. Literature data on clinical research suggest that patients treated in high-accrual centers report better treatment outcomes compared to patients treated in low-volume centers, where a lower radiotherapy-compliance and worst overall survival have been reported.
There is general agreement that treatment of rare cancers such as HNC should be concentrated in high volume, specialized and multidisciplinary centers. In order to achieve this goal, the creation of international collaboration network is fundamental. The European Reference Networks for example aim to create an international virtual advisory board, whose objectives are the exchange of expertise, training, clinical collaboration and the reduction of disparities and enhancement of rationalize migration across Europe.
The purpose of our work is to review all aspects and challenges in and outside this network setting planned for the management of HNC patients.
Patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) experienced better outcomes when treated according to existing clinical practice guidelines either at reference institution or dedicated treatment networks. ...Despite increasing evidence supporting referral to sarcoma specialised units, up to half of patients are not managed according to guidelines, particularly those in the early stage of their disease requiring surgery. Also, criteria to certify expertise of institutions, such as the treatment volume, are debated and health authorities have only recently started identification of these centres and creation of treatment networks in Europe as well as in several countries. This process have important implications for both patient outcomes and innovation of existing treatment strategies through clinical research, making improvement of clinical pathways a priority for health care authorities. This article will discuss issues with management of patients with STS, such as pathological diagnosis and adherence to guidelines, and the definition of referral centres and networks will be illustrated along with existing experiences and population-based data.
More than 50% of all gynaecological cancers can be classified as rare tumours (defined as an annual incidence of <6 per 100,000) and such tumours represent an important challenge for clinicians.
Rare ...cancers account for more than one fifth of all new cancer diagnoses, more than any of the single common cancers alone. Reviewing the RARECAREnet database, some of the tumours occur infrequently, whilst others because of their natural history have a high prevalence, and therefore appear to be more common, although their incidence is also rare. Harmonization of medical practice, guidelines and novel trials are needed to identify rare tumours and facilitate the development of new treatments. Ovarian tumours are the focus of this review, but we comment on other rare gynaecological tumours, as the diagnosis and treatment challenges faced are similar.
This requires European collaboration, international partnerships, harmonization of treatment and collaboration to overcome the regulatory barriers to conduct international trials. Whilst randomized trials can be done in many tumour types, there are some for which conducting even single arm studies may be challenging. For these tumours alternative study designs, robust collection of data through national registries and audits could lead to improvements in the treatment of rare tumours. In addition, concentring the care of patients with rare tumours into a limited number of centres will help to build expertise, facilitate trials and improve outcomes.
Variation in stage at diagnosis of childhood cancers (CC) may explain differences in survival rates observed across geographical regions. The BENCHISTA project aims to understand these differences ...and to encourage the application of the Toronto Staging Guidelines (TG) by Population-Based Cancer Registries (PBCRs) to the most common solid paediatric cancers.
PBCRs within and outside Europe were invited to participate and identify all cases of Neuroblastoma, Wilms Tumour, Medulloblastoma, Ewing Sarcoma, Rhabdomyosarcoma and Osteosarcoma diagnosed in a consecutive three-year period (2014-2017) and apply TG at diagnosis. Other non-stage prognostic factors, treatment, progression/recurrence, and cause of death information were collected as optional variables. A minimum of three-year follow-up was required. To standardise TG application by PBCRs, on-line workshops led by six tumour-specific clinical experts were held. To understand the role of data availability and quality, a survey focused on data collection/sharing processes and a quality assurance exercise were generated. To support data harmonization and query resolution a dedicated email and a question-and-answers bank were created.
67 PBCRs from 28 countries participated and provided a maximally de-personalized, patient-level dataset. For 26 PBCRs, data format and ethical approval obtained by the two sponsoring institutions (UCL and INT) was sufficient for data sharing. 41 participating PBCRs required a Data Transfer Agreement (DTA) to comply with data protection regulations. Due to heterogeneity found in legal aspects, 18 months were spent on finalizing the DTA. The data collection survey was answered by 68 respondents from 63 PBCRs; 44% of them confirmed the ability to re-consult a clinician in cases where stage ascertainment was difficult/uncertain. Of the total participating PBCRs, 75% completed the staging quality assurance exercise, with a median correct answer proportion of 92% range: 70% (rhabdomyosarcoma) to 100% (Wilms tumour).
Differences in interpretation and processes required to harmonize general data protection regulations across countries were encountered causing delays in data transfer. Despite challenges, the BENCHISTA Project has established a large collaboration between PBCRs and clinicians to collect detailed and standardised TG at a population-level enhancing the understanding of the reasons for variation in overall survival rates for CC, stimulate research and improve national/regional child health plans.
The management of patients with mesothelioma and thymic malignancy requires continuous multidisciplinary expertise at any step of the disease. A dramatic improvement in our knowledge has occurred in ...the last few years, through the development of databases, translational research programs, and clinical trials. Access to innovative strategies represents a major challenge, as there is a lack of funding for clinical research in rare cancers and their rarity precludes the design of robust clinical trials that could lead to specific approval of drugs. In this context, patient-centered initiatives, such as the establishment of dedicated networks, are warranted. International societies, such as IMIG (International Mesothelioma Interest Group) and ITMIG (International Thymic Malignancy Interest Group) provide infrastructure for global collaboration, and there are many advantages to having strong regional groups working on the same issues. There may be regional differences in risk factors, susceptibility, management and outcomes. The ability to address questions both regionally as well as globally is ideal to develop a full understanding of mesothelioma and thymic malignancies.
In Europe, through the integration of national networks with EURACAN, the collaboration with academic societies and international groups, the development of networks in thoracic oncology provides multiplex integration of clinical care and research, ultimately ensuring equal access to high quality care to all patients, with the opportunity of conducting high level clinical and translational research projects.
PDF
