Search

The diagnosis of a second primary cancer (SPC) is a major concern in the follow-up of survivors of a primary head and neck cancer (HNC), but the anatomic subsites in the head and neck area are close, making it difficult to distinguish a SPC of a recurrence and therefore register it correctly. We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from two population-based cancer registries in Catalonia, Spain: the Tarragona Cancer Registry and the Girona Cancer Registry. All patients diagnosed with HNC during the period 1994–2013 were registered and followed-up to collect cases of SPC. We analysed the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and the excess absolute risk (EAR) to determine the risk of second malignancies following a prior HNC. 923 SPC were found in a cohort of 5646 patients diagnosed of a first head and neck cancer. Men had an increased risk of a SPC with a SIR of 2.22 and an EAR of 216.76. Women also had an increased risk with a SIR of 2.02 and an EAR of 95.70. We show the risk for different tumour sites and discuss the difficulties of the analysis. The risks of a SPC following a prior HNC in Tarragona and Girona are similar to those previously found in other similar cohorts. It would appear to be advisable to make a revision of the international rules of classification of multiple tumours, grouping the sites of head and neck area with new aetiological criteria to better determine and interpret the risks of SPC obtained in these studies.

Background We provide population-based long-term survival indicators of breast cancer patients by quantifying the observed survival, and the probabilities of death due to breast cancer and to other causes by age and tumor stage at diagnosis. Methods We included a total of 10,195 female patients diagnosed before 85 years with invasive primary breast cancer in Girona and Tarragona during the periods 1985–1994 and 1995–2004 and followed-up until December 31st 2014. The survival indicators were estimated at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years of follow-up comparing diagnostic periods. Results Comparing diagnostic periods: I) the probability of death due to other causes did not change; II) the 20-year survival for women diagnosed ≤ 49 years increased 13% (1995–2004 = 68%; 1985–1994:55%), whereas their probability of death due to breast cancer decreased at the same pace (1995–2004 = 29%; 1985–1994 = 42%); III) at 10 years of follow-up, decreases in the probabilities of death due to breast cancer across age groups switched from 11 to 17% resulting in a risk of death reduction of 19% after adjusting by stage. During 1995–2004, the stage-specific 10-year probabilities of death due to breast cancer switched from: 3–6% in stage I, 18–20% in stage II, 34–46% in stage III and surpassed 70% in stage IV beyond 5 years after diagnosis. Conclusions In our study, women diagnosed with breast cancer had higher long-term probability to die from breast cancer than from other causes. The improvements in treatment and the lead-time bias in detecting cancer in an early stage resulted in a reduction of 19% in the risk of death between diagnostic periods. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12094-018-1852-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

To evaluate the cosmetic outcome of breast conservative therapy and to examine the degree of agreement between the patients' and oncologists' ratings. We also analyze the influence of several factors on cosmesis.We retrospectively evaluated 145 patients with primary breast cancer treated by local excision and radiotherapy between January 2000 and May 2001. Cosmetic outcome was evaluated by doctors and patients and was scored as excellent, good, fair or poor.73% of patients rated cosmesis as excellent or good while the percentage was 71% when rated by radiation oncologists. The degree of cosmesis concordance evaluated by oncologists and patients was low (kappa = 0.3). In our study the variables which significantly influence on the cosmetic outcome were concomitant adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.04) and radiation therapy boost, either by electron beam or brachytherapy (p = 0.013).The cosmetic outcome of breast conserving therapy was good. There was a similar rating by the patient and radiation oncologist, but the level of concordance between patients and doctors was low. Factors that significantly influence the cosmesis appear to be concomitant adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy boost.