Search

Background: Information on cancer prevalence is either absent or largely unavailable for central European countries. Materials and methods: Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland cover a population of 13 million inhabitants. Cancer registries in these countries supplied incidence and survival data for 465 000 cases of cancer. The prevalence of stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast, cervix uteri, corpus uteri and prostate cancer, as well as skin melanoma, Hodgkin's disease, leukaemia and all malignant neoplasms combined was estimated for the end of 1992. Results: A large heterogeneity was observed within central European countries. For all cancers combined, estimates ranged from 730 per 100 000 in Poland (men) to 3350 per 100 000 in Germany (women). Overall cancer prevalence was the highest in Germany and Switzerland, and the lowest in Poland and Slovenia. In Slovakia, prevalence was higher than average for men and lower than average for women. This was observed for almost all ages. As shown by incidence data, breast cancer was the most frequent malignancy among women in all countries. Among men, prostate cancer was the leading malignancy in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and lung cancer was the major cancer in Slovenia, Slovakia and Poland. The Netherlands had a high prevalence of both prostate and lung cancer. Time-related magnitude of prevalence within each country and the variability of such proportions across the countries has been estimated and cancer prevalence is given by time since diagnosis (1 year, 1-5 years, 5-10 years, >10 years) for each site. The weight of 1-year prevalence (248 per 100 000 among men and 253 per 100 000 among women) was 10 years before), reflecting long-term survival, and number of people considered as cured from cancer were 490 per 100 000 for men and 1028 per 100 000 for women, with a range between 26% (The Netherlands, men) and 50% (Slovakia, women). Conclusion: It is clear from observing countries in Central Europe, that high cancer prevalence is associated with well-developed economies. This burden of cancer could be interpreted as a paradoxical effect of better treatments and thereby survival. It could also be taken as a sign for not being satisfied with the advances in treating patients diagnosed with cancer, and for supporting more primary prevention

The purpose of the ELDCARE project is to study differences in cancer survival for elderly patients by country, taking into account the socio-economic conditions and the characteristics of health care systems at the ecological level. Fifty-three European cancer registries, from 19 countries, participating in the EUROCARE 3 programme, collected information to compute relative survival on patients aged 65-84 years, diagnosed over the period 1990-1994. National statistics offices provided the macro-economic and labour force indicators (gross domestic product, total health expenditure, and proportion of people employed in the agriculture sector) as well as the features of national health care systems. Survival for several of the cancer sites had high positive Pearson's correlations (r) with the affluence indicators (usually r > 0.7), but survival for the poor prognosis cancers (lung, ovary, stomach) and for cervix uteri was not so well correlated. Among the medical resources considered, the number of computed tomography scanners was the variable most related to survival in the elderly; the number of total health practitioners in the country did not show any relationship. Survival was related to the marital status of elderly women more strongly than for men and younger people. The highest correlations of survival with the percentage of married elderly women in the population were for cancers of the rectum (r = 0.79) and breast (r = 0.66), while survival correlated negatively with the proportion of widows for most cancers. Being married or widowed is for elderly people, in particular elderly women, an important factor influencing psychological status, life habits and social relationships. Social conditions could play a major role in determining health outcomes, particularly in the elderly, by affecting access to health care and delay in diagnosis. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND: EUROCARE-3 collected data from 45 population-based cancer registries in 20 countries on 24 620 European children aged from 0 to 14 years diagnosed with malignancy in the period 1990-1994. METHODS: Five-year survival between countries was compared for all malignancies and for the major diagnostic categories, adjusting for age, and estimated average European survival weighting for differences in childhood populations. RESULTS: For all cancers combined, survival variation was large (45% in Estonia to 90% in Iceland), and was generally low (60-70%) in eastern Europe and high (> or =75%) in Switzerland, Germany and the Nordic countries (except Denmark). The Nordic countries had the highest survival for four of the seven major tumour types: nephroblastoma (92%), acute lymphoid leukaemia (85%), CNS tumours (73%) and acute non-lymphocytic leukaemia (62%). The eastern countries had lowest survival: 89% for Hodgkin's disease, 71% for nephroblastoma, 68% for acute lymphoid leukaemia, 61% for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 57% for central nervous system (CNS) tumours and 29% for acute non-lymphocytic leukaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The Nordic countries represent a survival gold standard to which other countries can aspire. Since most childhood cancers respond well to treatment, survival differences are attributable to differences in access (including referral and timely diagnosis) and use of modern treatments; however, the obstacles to access and application of standard treatments probably vary markedly with country.

EUROCARE-3 analysed the survival of 1815584 adult cancer patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 in 22 European countries. The results are reported in tables, one per cancer site, coded according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 classification. The main findings of the tables are summarised and commented on in this article. For most solid cancers, wide differences in survival between different European populations were found, as also reported by EUROCARE-1 and EUROCARE-2, despite a remarkable (10%) overall increase in cancer survival from 1985 to 1994. Survival was highest in northern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland), and fairly good in central-southern Europe (France, Switzerland, Austria and Spain). Survival was particularly low in eastern Europe, low in Denmark and the UK, and fairly low in Portugal and Malta. The mix of tumour stage at diagnosis explains much of the survival differences for cancers of the digestive tract, female reproductive system, breast, thyroid, and also skin melanoma. For tumours of the urinary tract and prostate, the differences were explained mainly by differences in diagnostic criteria and procedures. The case mix by anatomic subsite largely explains differences in survival for head and neck cancers. For oesophagus, pancreas, liver and brain cancer, with poor prognoses, survival differences were limited. Tumours, for which highly effective treatments are available, such as testicular cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma and some haematological malignancies, had fairly uniform survival across Europe. Survival for all tumours combined (an indicator of the overall cancer care performance of a nation's health system) was better in young than old patients, and better in women than men. The affluence of countries influenced overall cancer survival through the availability of adequate diagnostic and treatment procedures, and screening programmes.

Summary International differences and trends in cancer survival withinEurope are larger than can reasonably be accounted for by arte-fact, bias or chance. The geographical patterns and trends in sur-vival are often broadly consistent with geographical differences ortrends in the type of cancer, diagnostic investigations or overallinvestment in health care, and for several major cancers, support-ing evidence is available from population-based studies of clinicalinformation. Incomplete ascertainment of cancer cases, particu-larly of long-term survivors, may contribute to some regional andinternational differences in survival, however, and more system-atic information on completeness is required. We may concludethat large international differences in survival do exist for manycancers, but we should be cautious in drawing quantitative orcausal conclusions from observational survival data.We do not yet have a fully satisfactory interpretation of thesedifferences, but we have few alternatives to this type of study if weare to understand the determinants of improved outcome for allcancer patients, and to enable better planning of their health care.The EUROCARE Working Group has developed several strategiesto disentangle the various possible explanations [73]. These includefurther development of high-resolution studies to examine theimpact on survival differences of disease stage, staging techniquesand treatment; and further development of mathematical modelsof cure. Extension of systematic international survival compari-sons to other regions of the world, such as Australia, Canada, Japanand the USA, is also in progress (the CONCORD study) [22].Oncologists and epidemiologists may provide insight into thegeographic differences and trends in survival reported by thisstudy, and may suggest further lines of enquiry. Do we need morerefined studies of survival to monitor progress against cancer andto plan future cancer care? Will such analyses help us quantify theeffect of new treatments arising from recent progress in the basicsciences and genomics on population cancer survival rates? Sub-stantial human and financial resources are required to improve theoutcome of cancer treatment. Will future investments in cancerservices include matching investment to monitor their impact onsurvival and mortality?Earlier diagnosis and prompt, universal access to optimal treat-ment would be expected to reduce international differences incancer survival in Europe. To achieve this, oncologists and healthcare planners will need better information on the comparativeperformance of their health systems. Population-based cancer reg-istries provide some of the information for such comparisons, buttheir traditional output may no longer be sufficient to evaluate theeffectiveness of health systems, and especially to explain geo-graphical differences in survival. In some countries, their role isalso under threat. Confidentiality constraints recently inhibitedthe collection of cancer registration data in the UK [90], and thelinkage of cancer registrations and deaths is currently illegal inEstonia [91]. Both activities are essential for internationally com-parable survival rates. Legal protection for cancer registrationacross Europe will be required.The mission of cancer registries should be reconsidered, and thepriority shifted from classical descriptive epidemiology and geo-graphical pathology toward more analytical monitoring ofprogress against cancer, including the probability of survival andcure, the burden of cancer prevalence, and the late effects oftherapy. Several European studies of this type have been reportedrecently [3, 36, 9294] and others are in progress. Many cancer–registries are developing closer relationships with cancer clini-cians and general practitioners, and some now systematicallycollect detailed clinical information that was collected eitherirregularly or not at all in the past. These developments willimprove the power of population-based cancer data to explain dif-ferences in cancer survival, and should enhance their relevance toclinical practice.European average survival rates are useful for comparativepurposes, but they should not become the goal for cancer controlprogrammes: the benchmark should always be the highest achiev-able survival rates.The aim of exploring geographic differences in cancer survivalis not to establish international league tables or to excite nationalrivalries, but to estimate the range of survival rates, and to identifyregions or countries in which survival could be improved.

Objective. Uterine sarcomas (US) are rare malignancies with unclear aetiology. Studies on uterine sarcomas in the setting of second primary malignant tumours can provide clues to aetiology and identify side effects of different treatments. Methods. A cohort of 8606 cases of US was extracted from the data from 13 cancer registries and followed for second primary cancers within the period 1943-2000. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated, and Poisson regression analyses were performed. Results. There were 499 cancer cases observed after a first diagnosis of US (SIR 1.26, 95%CI 1.16-1.38). SIRs were elevated for cancers of the mouth and pharynx (2.16, 95%CI 1.15-3.69), colorectum (1.60, 95%CI 1.28-1.98), lung (1.73, 95%CI 1.27-2.29), breast (1.25, 95%CI 1.05-1.49), urinary bladder (1.74, 95%CI 1.02-2.79), kidney (2.00, 95%CI 1.24-3.06), thyroid gland (2.74, 95%CI 1.42-4.79), and soft tissue sarcoma (5.23, 95%CI 2.51-9.62). The risk of breast cancer increased along with increasing age of US diagnosis (p trend 0.040). The risk of kidney cancer increased along with decreasing age of US diagnosis (p trend 0.004) and short time since the US diagnosis (p trend 0.018). Conclusions. Our study demonstrated increased risk of certain cancers following a diagnosis of US. The elevated risk for breast cancer may indicate shared hormonal aetiology, while the increased risk of colorectal and bladder cancers after US may be caused by radiation therapy of US. The clustering of smoking-related cancers after US is worth exploring in the future. (c) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

International audience; We explored the influence of morphology on geographic differences in 5-year survival for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) diagnosed in 1990-1994 and followed for 5years: 16,955 cases from 27 EUROCARE-3 cancer registries, and 22,713 cases from 9 US SEER registries. Overall 5-year relative survival was 56.1% in EUROCARE west, 47.1% in EUROCARE east and 56.3% in SEER. Relative excess risk (RER) of death was 1.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.10) in EUROCARE west, 1.52 (95% CI 1.44-1.60) in EUROCARE east (SEER reference). Excess risk of death was significantly above reference (diffuse B lymphoma) for Burkitt's and NOS lymphoma; not different for lymphoblastic and other T-cell; significantly below reference (in the order of decreasing relative excess risk) for NHL NOS, mantle cell/centrocytic, lymphoplasmacytic, follicular, small lymphocytic/chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, other specified NHL and cutaneous morphologies. Interpretation of marked variation in survival with morphology is complicated by classification inconsistencies. The completeness and standardisation of cancer registry morphology data needs to be improved.

International audience; OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in survival from cervical cancer in Europe and in European countries participating in the EUROCARE study as a function of age, morphology and stage at diagnosis. METHODS: Relative survival and relative excess risk of death within 5 years of diagnosis, as a function of age, morphology and stage, among 73,022 women aged 15-99 years diagnosed during 1983-1994 and followed up to 1999 in each of 18 European countries participating in the EUROCARE study, using data from 34 population-based cancer registries. RESULTS: Overall five-year relative survival was 62%, rising by 2% during the period 1983-1994. The highest survival occurred in Northern and Western Europe and the lowest in Central Europe. Survival falls with age at diagnosis, but mainly for localised disease. Survival is higher for adenocarcinoma in younger women, but higher for squamous cell carcinoma in older women. The proportions of younger women, localised cancer and adenocarcinoma all increased. The main improvements in survival were for women under 65, and for metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: Survival in Europe has improved slowly but steadily, but the trend is not geographically uniform. Central European countries and the UK saw little or no improvement, and survival in those countries remains the lowest among participating countries in Europe. Further reduction of cervical cancer mortality in Europe may be expected from expansion of screening, and improvement in the treatment of older women, and of metastatic disease.

International audience; BACKGROUND: Rare cancers are a challenge to clinical practice, and treatment experience, even in major cancer centres to which rare cancers are usually referred, is often limited. We aimed to study the epidemiology of rare cancers in a large population of several countries. METHODS: We analysed survival by age, sex, subsite, and morphology in 57,144 adults with 14 selected rare cancers diagnosed 1983-94. Variations in survival over time and between European regions were also assessed for variations in quality of care. We also estimated the adjusted relative excess risk of death for every rare cancer. FINDINGS: Overall 5-year relative survival was good (ie, >65%) for placental choriocarcinoma (85.4% [95% CI 81.4-89.5]), thyroid medullary carcinoma (72.4% [69.2-75.5]), ovarian germ-cell cancer (73.0% [70.0-76.0]), lung carcinoid (70.1% [67.3-72.9]), and cervical adenocarcinoma (65.5% [64.3-66.6]); intermediate (ie, 35-65%) for testicular cancer at age 65 years or older (64.0% [59.3-68.7]), sarcoma of extremities (60.0% [58.9-61.2]), digestive-system endocrine cancers (55.6% [54.9-56.3]), anal squamous-cell carcinoma (53.1% [51.5-54.8]), and uterine sarcoma (43.5% [42.0-44.9]); low for carcinoma of adrenal-gland cortex (32.7% [28.3-37.2]) and bladder squamous-cell carcinoma (20.4% [18.8-22.0]); and poor for angiosarcoma of liver (6.4% [1.8-11.0]) and mesothelioma (4.7% [4.3-5.2]). Survival was usually better for women than men and poor in those aged 75 years or older. Survival significantly improved over time for ovarian germ-cell cancer, sarcomas of extremities, digestive-system endocrine tumours, anal squamous-cell carcinoma, and angiosarcoma of liver. Survival in northern Europe was higher than in the other geographic groupings for most cancers. INTERPRETATION: Because effective treatments are available for several of the rare cancers we assessed, further research is needed to ascertain why survival is lower in some European countries than in others, particularly in older patients. Audit of best practice for rare cancers with treatment protocols would be useful.

The EUROCLUS study assembled incidence data for 13 551 cases of childhood leukaemia (CL) diagnosed between 1980 and 1989 in 17 countries (or regions of countries). These were referenced by location at diagnosis to small census areas of which there were 25 723 in the study area. Population counts, surface area and, hence, population density were available for all these small areas. Previous analyses have shown limited extra-Poisson variation (EPV) of case counts within small areas; this is most pronounced in areas of intermediate population density (150-499 persons/km(2)). In this study, the data set was examined in more detail for evidence that variations in incidence and EPV of CL are associated with population density. Incidence showed a curvilinear association with population density and was highest in areas which were somewhat more densely populated (500-750 persons/km(2)), where the incidence rate ratio relative to areas having greater than or equal to 1000 persons/km(2) was 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.07-1.26) and the P value for quadratic trend across eight strata of population density was 0.02. Incidence in these areas is uniformly elevated and showed no evidence of heterogeneity (i.e. EPV). Statistically significant evidence of EPV was evident amongst some of the areas previously classified as intermediate density areas (specifically, those with a density of 250-499 persons/km(2), P < 0.001 for CL). These results were interpreted in terms of the current aetiological hypotheses for CL which propose that exposure to localised epidemics of one or more common infectious agent may contribute to the development of leukaemia. They suggest that such epidemics arise regularly in moderately densely populated areas and also sporadically in areas which are somewhat less densely populated. Although other interpretations are possible, these results may assist: in the identification of characteristics which infectious agents must possess if direct or indirect causes of CL. (C) 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

The interpretation of reports of clusters of childhood leukaemia is difficult, first because little is known about the causes of the disease, and second because there is insufficient information on whether cases show a generalized tendency to cluster geographically. The EUROCLUS project is a European collaborative study whose primary objective is to determine whether the residence locations of cases at diagnosis show a general tendency towards spatial clustering. The second objective is to interpret any patterns observed and, in particular, to see if clustering can be explained in terms of either infectious agents or environmental hazards as aetiological agents. The spatial distribution of 13351 cases of childhood leukaemia diagnosed in 17 countries between 1980 and 1989 has been analysed using the Pothoff-Whittinghill method. The overall results show statistically significant evidence of clustering of total childhood leukaemia within small census areas (P = 0.03) but the magnitude of the clustering is small (extra-Poisson component of variance (%) = 1.7 with 90% confidence interval 0.2-3.1). The clustering is most marked in areas that have intermediate population density (150-499 persons km(-2)). It cannot be attributed to any specific age group at diagnosis or cell type and involves spatial aggregation of cases of different ages and cell types. The results indicate that intense clusters are a rare phenomenon that merit careful investigation, although aetiological insights are more likely to come from investigation of large numbers of cases. We present a method for detecting clustering that is simple and readily available to cancer registries and similar groups.

Children diagnosed with noncentral nervous system solid cancers (NCNSSC) experience several adverse late effects, including second malignant neoplasm. The aim of our study was to assess the risk of specific second malignancies after a childhood NCNSSC. Diagnosis and follow-up data on 10,988 cases of NCNSSC in children (0-14 years) were obtained from 13 registries. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and cumulative incidence of second malignancies were computed. We observed 175 second malignant neoplasms, yielding a SIR of 4.6, 95% CI: 3.9-5.3. When considering second cancers with at least 10 occurrences, highest relative risks were found for second malignant bone tumors (SIR = 26.4, 16.6-40.0), soft tissue sarcomas (SIR = 14.1, 6.7-25.8) and myeloid leukemia (SIR = 12.7, 6.3-22.8). Significant increased risks for all malignancies combined were observed after sympathetic nervous system tumors (SIR = 11.4, 5.2-21.6), retinoblastomas (SIR = 7.3, 5.4-9.8), renal tumors (SIR = 5.7, 3.8-8.0), malignant bone tumors (SIR = 5.6, 3.7-8.2), soft tissue sarcomas (SIR = 4.7, 3.2-6.8), germ-cell, trophoblastic and other gonadal neoplasms (SIR = 2.5, 1.1-4.9), carcinomas and other malignant epithelial neoplasms (SIR = 2.2, 1.4-3.3). The highest risk of a second malignancy of any type occurred 5 to 9 years after NCNSSC (SIR = 9.9, 6.8-13.9). The cumulative incidence of second malignancies 10 years after the first neoplasm was eight times higher among NCNSSC survivors than in the general population, with the absolute difference between observed and expected cumulative incidence still increasing after 50 years of follow-up. Children who survived a NCNSSC experience a large increased risk of developing a new malignancy, even many years after their initial diagnosis. Copyright © 2011 UICC.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of second primary cancers (SPCs) following first primary lung cancers (FPLCs) may provide aetiological insights into FPLC. METHODS: Cases of FPLCs in 13 cancer registries in Europe, Australia, Canada, and Singapore were followed up from the date of FPLC diagnosis to the date of SPC diagnosis, date of death, or end of follow-up. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to estimate the magnitude of SPC development following squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), and adenocarcinoma (ADC). RESULTS: Among SCC patients, male SIR = 1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50-1.66) and female SIR = 2.31 (1.94-2.72) for smoking-related SPC. Among SCLC patients, the respective ratios were 1.39 (1.20-1.60) and 2.28 (1.73-2.95), and among ADC patients, they were 1.73 (1.57-1.90) and 2.24 (1.91-2.61). We also observed associations between first primary lung ADC and second primary breast cancer in women (SIR = 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.48) and prostate cancer (1.56, 1.39-1.79) in men. CONCLUSION: The FPLC patients carried excess risks of smoking-related SPCs. An association between first primary lung ADC and second primary breast and ovarian cancer in women at younger age and prostate cancers in men may reflect an aetiological role of hormones in lung ADC. British Journal of Cancer (2010) 102, 1190-1195. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605616 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2010 Cancer Research UK

Background: The objective of this study is to assess the risk of second primary cancers following a first primary esophageal cancer as well as the risk of esophageal cancer as a second primary, following first primary cancers of other sites. Methods: The present investigation is a multicenter study of 13 population-based cancer registries in Europe, Australia, Canada, and Singapore. To assess excess occurrence of second cancers after esophageal cancers, we calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIR) by dividing the observed numbers of second cancers by the expected number of cancers calculated from the accumulated person-years and the age-, sex-, calendar period-, and registry-specific first primary cancer incidence rates. Results: During the study period, 959 cases of second primary cancers occurred after an initial esophageal cancer, resulting in a SIR of 1.15 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.22). Second primary stomach cancers were associated with first primary esophageal adenocarcinomas (SIR, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-3.37) and second primary cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx (6.68; 5.33-8.26), stomach (1.53; 1.14-2.01), larynx (3.24; 1.88-5.18), lung (1.55; 1.28-1.87), kidney (1.88; 1.18-2.85), and thyroid (2.92; 1.18-6.02) were associated with first primary squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus. An excess of esophageal cancer as a second primary were observed following first primary cancers of the aerodigestive tract, female breast, cervix, testis, bladder, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non–Hodgkin lymphoma. Conclusion: We observed associations of esophageal cancer with second primary head and neck cancers and lung cancer regardless of years of follow-up, which may suggest that common risk factors play a role in multiple tumor development. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(6):1543–9)

Background: Skin cancers are known to be associated with sun exposure, whereas sunlight through the production of vitamin D may protect against some cancers. The aim of this study was to assess whether patients with skin cancer have an altered risk of developing other cancers. Methods: The study cohort consisted of 416,134 cases of skin cancer and 3,776,501 cases of non-skin cancer as a first cancer extracted from 13 cancer registries. 10,886 melanoma and 35,620 non-melanoma skin cancer cases had second cancers. The observed numbers (O) of 46 types of second primary cancer after skin melanoma, basal cell carcinoma or non-basal cell carcinoma, and of skin cancers following non-skin cancers were compared to the expected numbers (E) derived from the age, sex and calendar period specific cancer incidence rates in each of the cancer registries (O/E = SIR, standardised incidence ratios). Rates from cancer registries classified to sunny countries (Australia, Singapore and Spain) and less sunny countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Scotland, Slovenia and Sweden) were compared to each other. Results: SIR of all second solid primary cancers (except skin and lip) after skin melanoma were significantly lower for the sunny countries (SIR(S) = 1.03; 95% CI 0.99-1.08) than in the less sunny countries (SIR(L) = 1.14; 95%CI 1.11-1.17). The difference was more obvious after non-melanoma skin cancers: after basal cell carcinoma SIR(S)/SIR(L) = 0.65 (95%CI = 0.58-0.72); after non-basal cell carcinoma SIR(S)/SIR(L) = 0.58 (95%CI = 0.50-0.67). In sunny countries, the risk of second primary cancer after non-melanoma skin cancers was lower for most of the cancers except for lip, mouth and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Conclusions: Vitamin D production in the skin seems to decrease the risk of several solid cancers (especially stomach, colorectal, liver and gallbladder, pancreas, lung, female breast, prostate, bladder and kidney cancers). The apparently protective effect of sun exposure against second primary cancer is more pronounced after non-melanoma skin cancers than melanoma, which is consistent with earlier reports that non-melanoma skin cancers reflect cumulative sun exposure, whereas melanoma is more related to sunburn. © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: Survivors of childhood leukemia and lymphoma experience high risks of second malignant neoplasms. We quantified such risk using a large dataset from 13 population-based cancer registries. Methods: The registries provided individual data on cases of leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma occurring in children aged 0-14 years and on subsequent second malignant neoplasms for different time periods from 1943 to 2000. Risks of second malignant neoplasms were assessed through standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the incidence rates in the general populations covered by the registries as a reference. Cumulative absolute risks were also calculated. Results: A total of 133 second malignant neoplasms were observed in 16 540 patients (12 731 leukemias, 1246 Hodgkin lymphomas, and 2563 non-Hodgkin lymphomas) after an average follow-up of 6.5 years. The most frequent second malignancies after leukemia were brain cancer (19 cases, SIR = 8.52, 95% CI = 5.13 to 13.3), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (nine cases, SIR = 9.41, 95% CI = 4.30 to 17.9), and thyroid cancer (nine cases, SIR = 18.8, 95% CI = 8.60 to 35.7); the most frequent after Hodgkin lymphoma were thyroid cancer (nine cases, SIR = 52.5, 95% CI = 24.0 to 99.6), breast cancer (six cases, SIR = 20.9, 95% CI = 7.66 to 45.4), and neoplasms of skin (non-melanoma) (six cases, SIR = 34.0, 95% CI = 12.5 to 74.0); and the most frequent after non-Hodgkin lymphoma were thyroid cancer (six cases, SIR = 40.4, 95% CI = 14.8 to 88.0) and brain cancer (four cases, SIR = 6.97, 95% CI = 1.90 to 17.9). Cumulative incidence of any second malignant neoplasm was 2.43% (95% CI = 1.09 to 3.78), 12.7% (95% CI = 8.29 to 17.2), and 2.50% (95% CI = 1.04 to 3.96) within 30 years from diagnosis of leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, respectively. Conclusions: This population-based study provides, to our knowledge, the most precise and up-to-date estimates for relative and absolute risks of second malignant neoplasms after childhood leukemia and lymphoma. © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Studies of pancreatic cancer in the setting of second primary malignant neoplasms can provide etiologic clues. An international multicenter study was carried out using data from 13 cancer registries with a registration period up to year 2000. Cancer patients were followed up from the initial cancer diagnosis, and the occurrence of second primary malignant neoplasms was compared with expected values derived from local rates, adjusting for age, sex, and period of diagnosis. Results from individual registries were pooled by use of a fixed-effects model. People were at higher risk of developing pancreatic cancer within 10 years of a diagnosis of cancers of the pharynx, stomach, gallbladder, larynx, lung, cervix, corpus uteri, bladder, and eye and 10 years or later following a diagnosis of cancers of the stomach, colon, gallbladder, breast, cervix, placenta, corpus uteri, ovary, testis, bladder, kidney, and eye, as well as Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Pancreatic cancer was connected with smoking-related cancers, confirming the etiologic role of tobacco. The associations with uterine and ovarian cancers suggest that reproductive factors might be implicated in pancreatic carcinogenesis. The elevated pancreatic cancer risk in young patients observed among several types of cancer implies a role of genetic factors. Radiotherapy is also suggested as a risk factor. Copyright © 2006 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health All rights reserved.

A large number of women survive a diagnosis of breast cancer. Knowledge of their risk of developing a new primary cancer is important not only in relation to potential side effects of their cancer treatment, but also in relation to the possibility of shared etiology with other types of cancer. A cohort of 525,527 women with primary breast cancer was identified from 13 population-based cancer registries in Europe, Canada, Australia and Singapore, and followed for second primary cancers within the period 1943-2000. We used cancer incidence rates of first primary cancer for the calculation of standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of second primary cancer. Risk of second primary breast cancer after various types of nonbreast cancer was also computed. For all second cancer sites combined, except contralateral breast cancer, we found a SIR of 1.25 (95% CI = 1.24-1.26) on the basis of 31,399 observed cases after first primary breast cancer. The overall risk increased with increasing time since breast cancer diagnosis and decreased by increasing age at breast cancer diagnosis. There were significant excesses of many different cancer sites; among these the excess was larger than 150 cases for stomach (SIR = 1.35), colorectal (SIR = 1.22), lung (SIR = 1.24), soft tissue sarcoma (SIR = 2.25), melanoma (SIR = 1.29), non-melanoma skin (SIR = 1.58), endometrium (SIR = 1.52), ovary (SIR = 1.48), kidney (SIR = 1.27), thyroid gland (SIR = 1.62) and leukaemia (SIR = 1.52). The excess of cancer after a breast cancer diagnosis is likely to be explained by treatment for breast cancer and by shared genetic or environmental risk factors, although the general excess of cancer suggests that there may be additional explanations such as increased surveillance and general cancer susceptibility. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

An international multicentre study of first and second primary neoplasms associated with male breast cancer was carried out by pooling data from 13 cancer registries. Among a total of 3409 men with primary breast cancer, 426 (12.5%) developed a second neoplasia; other than breast cancer, a 34% overall excess risk of second primary neoplasia, affecting the small intestine (standardised incidence ratio, 4.95, 95% confidence interval, 1.35- 12.7), rectum (1.78, 1.20-2.54), pancreas (1.93, 1.14-3.05), skin (nonmelanoma, 1.65, 1.16-2.29), prostate (1.61, 1.34-1.93) and lymphohaematopoietic system (1.63, 1.12-2.29). A total of 225 male breast cancers was recorded after cancers other than breast cancer, but an increase was found only after lymphohaematopoietic neoplasms. BRCA2 (and to some extent BRCA1) mutations may explain the findings for pancreatic and prostate cancers. Increases at other sites may be related to unknown factors or to chance. This large study shows that the risks for second discordant tumours after male breast cancer pose only a moderate excess risk. © 2005 Cancer Research UK.

Cancer of the small intestine is a rare neoplasm, and its etiology remains poorly understood. Analysis of other primary cancers in individuals with small intestine cancer may help elucidate the causes of this neoplasm and the underlying mechanisms. We included 10,946 cases of first primary small intestine cancer from 13 cancer registries in a pooled analysis. The observed numbers of 44 types of second primary cancer were compared to the expected numbers derived from the age-, gender- and calendar period-specific cancer incidence rates in each registry. We also calculated the standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for small intestine cancer as a second primary after other cancers. There was a 68% overall increase in the risk of a new primary cancer after small intestine carcinoma (SIR = 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47-1.71), that remained constant over time. The overall SIR was 1.18 (95% CI = 1.05-1.32) after carcinoid, 1.29 (1.01-1.63) after sarcoma, and 1.27 (0.78-1.94) after lymphoma. Significant (p < 0.05) increases were observed for cancers of the oropharynx, colon, rectum, ampulla of Vater, pancreas, corpus uteri, ovary, prostate, kidney, thyroid gland, skin and soft tissue sarcomas. Small intestine cancer as a second primary was increased significantly after all these cancers, except after oropharyngeal and kidney cancers. Although some of the excess may be attributable to overdiagnosis, it is plausible that most additional cases of second primary cancers were clinically relevant and were due to common genetic (e.g., defects in mismatch or other DNA repair pathways) and environmental (e.g., dietary) factors. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.