Search

Background: Population-based data on borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) are scarce and information regarding recent trends in incidence, treatment and survival is lacking. The purpose of this study was to analyze these trends in the Netherlands and to assess the risk of developing a subsequent invasive ovarian tumor. Material and methods: All consecutive patients diagnosed with BOTs between 1993 and 2016 ( n  = 7113) were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR). Annual age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated. Relative survival (RS) analyses and multivariable analyses estimating excess mortality were conducted. Patients with a subsequent invasive ovarian tumor were identified by the NCR. Results: Age-adjusted incidence increased from 2.1/100,000 person-years in 1993 to 4.2/100,000 in 2011, after 2011 the incidence declined. The proportion of bilateral tumors decreased over time from 16% in 1993-1998 to 11% in 2005-2010 and remained stable onwards. Survival improved over time (excess mortality ratio adjusted 2011-2016 versus 1993-1998: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.13-0.47). Five-year RS increased from 91% in 1993-1998 to 98% in 2011-2016 and 10-year RS from 88% in 1993-1998 to 96% in 2005-2010. Fewer patients were treated with chemotherapy (4.4% in 1993-1998 versus 0.7% in 2011-2016). During a median follow-up time of 8 years, 0.9% developed a subsequent invasive ovarian carcinoma. Conclusions: The incidence of BOTs increased over time from 1993 until 2010 but declined since 2011. This decline may be partly due to changes in the classification of gynecological tumors, as serous BOTs are now more often diagnosed as low grade serous ovarian cancers. Survival is high and has improved since 1993. The risk of a subsequent invasive ovarian carcinoma seems low.

Background: In recent years, evidence supporting multimodality treatment for oesophageal, oesophagogastric junction (OGJ), and gastric cancer has accumulated. This population-based cohort-study investigates trends and predictors of utilisation of multimodality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands., Patients and Methods: Data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry regarding patients with oesophageal (n = 5450), OGJ (n = 2168) and gastric cancer (n = 6683) without distant metastases who had undergone R0 or R1 surgery diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. Follow-up was completed until February 2014. Preoperative/postoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy combined with surgery were considered multimodality treatment. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyse the association of age, gender, socioeconomic status, clinical T and N classification, hospital type, comprehensive cancer centre network region, and year of diagnosis, with multimodality treatment receipt. Additional analyses were performed to explore differences in trends of utilisation of multimodality treatment between academic and non-academic hospitals., Results: Multimodality treatment utilisation for oesophageal, OGJ and gastric cancer increased significantly to 90%, 85% and 56% in 2012, respectively. In oesophageal and OGJ cancer patients, preoperative chemoradiotherapy was most frequently administered (85% and 47% in 2012, respectively), and in gastric cancer patients preoperative chemotherapy (47% in 2012). Lower age, higher clinical T and N classification, and diagnosis in more recent years were significantly associated with more frequent multimodality treatment receipt. The adoption of most types of multimodality treatment in academic hospitals preceded non-academic hospitals by a year., Conclusion: In the Netherlands, the utilisation of multimodality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer has significantly increased during the past decade, especially in oesophageal and OGJ cancer. Multimodality treatment utilisation was especially dependent on patient and tumour characteristics and year of diagnosis, but multimodality treatment trends seem to be related to the publication of landmark studies, participation in nationally running clinical trials, and hospital type, preceding national guidelines.

Background: Use of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer has increased since several trials have shown the beneficial effect on survival. In this population-based study we show time trends in the administration and costs of chemotherapy and relative survival of patients with stage III colon cancer., Methods: All patients surgically treated for adenocarcinoma of the colon stage III between 1990 and 2008 in The Netherlands were included. Relative survival (using period analyses) and Relative Excess Risks of death (RER) were calculated. The costs of chemotherapy were estimated., Results: A total of 24 111 colon cancer patients with stage III were included in the cohort. The administration (from 9.5% in 1990 to 61.8% in 2008; p < 0.001) and costs of chemotherapy (from €38 467 in 1990 to €3 876 150 in 2008) increased during the study period. Multivariable relative survival improved for patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (RER 0.93; 95% CI 0.92-0.94; p < 0.001). In contrast, relative survival remained stable for patients, younger than 80 years, who did not receive chemotherapy (RER 1.00; 95% CI 1.00-1.01; p = 0.3). Patients aged 80 years and older without chemotherapy, relative survival increased during the study period (RER 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The administration, the costs of chemotherapy and the survival of patients with stage III colon cancer increased over time. Whereas the costs and administration of chemotherapy increased extensively, relative survival increased to a lesser extent. For patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy relative survival increased equally in all age groups.

Background: Both adjuvant therapy and mammography screening can decrease breast cancer mortality and there is a need of knowing to what extent those two modalities are used in the population. Screening coverage is well documented but there is a scarcity of population-based data on use of systemic adjuvant treatment., Aim: To describe the introduction, and trends in the use of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer in two of six public health regions in Sweden., Material & Methods: Population-based data on use of adjuvant therapy were available from databases with documented high quality and high coverage data for Stockholm (1976-2005) and North Sweden (1980-2003, and 2005)., Results: The use of systemic treatment was infrequent before the late 1980s in both regions, but increased during the 1990s. In 2005, the proportion of operable breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy in the ages 40-59 was around 60 to 80%. The proportion adjuvant chemotherapy was less than 15% for the ages 70-74. For the north region the use of endocrine therapy increased successively over time, with an exception for age group 40-49 were a more rapidly increase occurred in the late 1990s. In Stockholm the increment was higher and more rapidly. There was no clear difference in chemotherapy use between the regions, and the use increased from the mid 1980s in age group 40-49, and in the early 1990s for women aged 50-59. In age group's 60-69 and 70-74 the use was relatively infrequent., Conclusions: Trends in, and levels of the use of adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer varied over time in the two study regions, particularly for endocrine therapy. We consider that the differences between the regions mainly reflect different interpretations of new scientific evidence. We stress the importance of a good documentation of all new treatment protocols.

Recent clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer support two general observations. First, overall survival is not impacted by the extent of surgery. Low rates of axillary relapse in patients treated with total mastectomy alone combined with the availability of systemic therapy as a substitute for surgical control of the axilla mean that patients can often be spared the morbidity of axillary node dissection. In problematic cases, newer diagnostic approaches, such as sentinel node biopsy, can help in making appropriate treatment decisions. Second, systemic therapy can reduce the clinical manifestations of disease. The incorporation of more sophisticated approaches to predicting outcomes, to varying timing and dose of treatment, and to developing new modalities of treatment, including immunotherapy, will contribute to a general strategy aimed at reducing the tumor to a harmless parasite. These observations support a paradigm shift in our definition of 'adjuvant'. Rather than referring to the use of systemic therapy after the patient's known disease has been surgically removed, adjuvant therapy would be re-defined to refer to local therapy used to eradicate any residual tumor remaining after systemic therapy has been completed.