Search

Abstract The availability of population-based cancer registry (CR) data is paramount in the development of modern oncology. Major contributions consisted in accurately measuring cancer burden (incidence, survival and prevalence, beside mortality), identifying and quantifying risk factors (case control and cohort studies that, in the last two decades, included gene variant assessment) and evaluating outcomes of treatments and preventive interventions, including mass screening. Cancer registration coverage of European populations progressed slowly since 1940 and is now almost 50%. Areas lacking high-quality national population-based cancer registration still exist within large countries such as France, Italy, Romania and Spain, Germany and Poland having national plans and legislation to reach complete coverage. Depending on programme ownership, history and institutional organisation, European CRs showed huge variations in the scope (research domain), size, available resources and finally exploitation of collected data. This reflects their heterogeneous origins stemming from different professional backgrounds and healthcare systems. This review discusses not only the potential for contributing to acceleration of prevention but also the coverage expansion by and innovation of CR organizations. The latter can be attained not only by more standardisation in institutional organisation and operative methodologies but also by intensification of scientific production and risk communication. The CR's agenda should focus on cancers caused by identifiable risk factor(s) that are amenable to preventive actions, including early detection; short-term priorities usually are with tobacco, and medium-term priorities are with alcohol, occupational exposures, infection-related cancers and ultraviolet-related skin cancers, while obesity-related cancers are likely to increase gradually further in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer incidence is increasing worldwide and is a major cause of mortality. The relative magnitude of the increase is remarkably high in low human development index (HDI; 95%) and medium HDI (64%) countries. On the African continent, a corresponding increase in cancer burden is predicted, particularly for sub-Saharan Africa. Current epidemiologic data indicate that mortality rates of certain cancers, such as breast and cervical cancers, in sub-Saharan Africa are the highest in the world, and the cancer risks are broadly comparable to the risks in high-income countries, such as the United States and Europe. Although emerging data alludes to the unique genetic profile of cancer in African populations, most cancer therapies are introduced to Africa without confirmatory clinical trials. Therefore, there is an increasing need for clinical trials directed toward prevention, screening, diagnosis, and identification of innovative treatments in the African context. This review will discuss the increasing cancer burden in Africa, with a particular focus on Ghana, unmet clinical needs in cancer, current medical systems, clinical trial regulatory systems, and challenges to clinical trial recruitment., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

The burden of cancer is increasing worldwide, and Europe is no exception in this regard. Cancer incidence rate for men in 2018, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers, averaged over the 40 UN-defined European countries has been estimated as 436/100 000. For women, the estimated incidence rate is 332.6/100 000. Although mortality rates are declining in most European countries, the total number of cancer deaths continues to rise due to an increase in the number of older people in the age range when the cancer typically occurs. The increase in incident cases and cancer deaths increases the pressure on healthcare infrastructure and related costs, thus presenting a challenge to health service sustainability in countries. In the general population, there remains a perception of an ever-increasing cancer risk. Hence, treatment alone is not a solution to address the cancer burden. At the same time, recent estimates of preventable fractions of cancer suggest that about half of all cancer cases could be prevented through rigorous implementation of successful prevention measures, among other actions, by following the cancer prevention recommendations of the European Code against Cancer. Smoking alone explains almost half of all preventable cancers, and the scattered way of implementing tobacco control in Europe with still increasing numbers of lung cancers in women demonstrates the gap between prevention potential and effectively implemented prevention. Cancer prevention clearly needs more resources, stronger support from decision-makers and society, and a solid network to better speak with one voice. The newly established 'Cancer Prevention Europe' (Forman et al., ) offers promising opportunities for the latter., (© 2018 The Authors. Published by FEBS Press and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Cancer research is among the most active biomedical research domains for the European Union (EU). However, little quantitative empirical evidence is available to guide the decisions on the choice of disease site to study, specific research domain focus or allocation of research resources. To inform national/supranational cancer research policy, high-resolution intelligence is needed., Methods: We performed a bibliometric analysis of European cancer research papers in the Web of Science from 2002 to 2013 to quantify research activity in each of the 28 EU Member States, along with Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (EUR31), which cancer sites/research domains they addressed, and their sources of financial support (2009-2013)., Findings: Cancer research papers from EUR31 correlated well with national Gross Domestic Products (r 2  = 0.94). However, certain cancer sites (lung, oesophagus and pancreas) were under-researched relative to their disease burden, whereas central nervous system and blood cancers were more generously supported than their burden would warrant. An analysis of research domains indicated a paucity of research on radiotherapy (5%), palliative care (1.2%) and quality of life (0.5%). European cancer research funding in 2012-2013 amounted to ∼€7.6 billion and came from diverse sources, especially in western Europe/Scandinavia, where in nine countries the charitable sector outspent the government but not in Eastern Europe where charitable research funding barely exists., Interpretation: Several countries need to increase their cancer research outputs substantially, and/or alter their research portfolios to better match their growing (and changing) cancer burden. More co-ordination among funding agencies is required, so that resources can be attuned to align activities to research gaps and perceived clinical needs. In Eastern Europe, the charitable funding sector needs to be developed, so that both public and patient advocacy can have an active role in research., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer incidence increases exponentially with advancing age, cancer patients live longer than in the past, and many new treatments focus on stabilizing disease and HRQOL. The objective of this study is to examine how cancer affects patients' HRQOL and whether their HRQOL is age-dependent., Methods: Data from 25 EORTC randomized controlled trials was pooled. EORTC QLQ-C30 mean scores for the cancer cohort and five general population cohorts were compared to assess the impact of cancer on patients' HRQOL. Within the cancer cohort, multiple linear regressions (two-sided level P-value = 0.05 adjusted for multiple testing.) were used to investigate the association between age and HRQOL, adjusted for gender, WHO performance status (PS), distant metastasis and stratified by cancer site. A difference of 10 points on the 0-100 scale was considered clinically important., Results: Cancer patients generally have worse HRQOL compared to the general population, but the specific HRQOL domains impaired vary with age. When comparing the cancer versus the general population, young cancer patients had worse financial problems, social and role functioning, while the older cancer groups had more appetite loss. Within the cancer cohort, HRQOL was worse with increasing age for physical functioning and constipation, and better with increasing age for social functioning, insomnia and financial problems (all p < 0.05)., Conclusion: HRQOL is impaired in cancer patients compared to the general population, but the impact on specific HRQOL domains varies by age. Within the cancer population, some HRQOL components improve with age while others deteriorate. Optimal care for older cancer patients should target HRQOL domains most relevant to this population., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Every cancer-related death in someone of working age represents an economic loss to society. To inform priorities for cancer control, we estimated costs of lost productivity due to premature cancer-related mortality across Europe, for all cancers and by site, gender, region and country. Cancer deaths in 2008 were obtained from GLOBOCAN for 30 European countries across four regions. Costs were valued using the human capital approach. Years of productive life lost (YPLL) were computed by multiplying deaths between 15 and 64 years by working-life expectancy, then by country-, age- and gender-specific annual wages, corrected for workforce participation and unemployment. Lost productivity costs due to premature cancer-related mortality in Europe in 2008 were €75 billion. Male costs (€49 billion) were almost twice female costs (€26 billion). The most costly sites were lung (€17 billion; 23% of total costs), breast (€7 billion; 9%) and colorectum (€6 billion; 8%). Stomach cancer (in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe) and pancreatic cancer (in Northern and Western Europe) were also among the most costly sites. The average lost productivity cost per cancer death was €219,241. Melanoma had the highest cost per death (€312,798), followed by Hodgkin disease (€306,628) and brain and CNS cancer (€288,850). Premature mortality costs were 0.58% of 2008 European gross domestic product, highest in Central-Eastern Europe (0.81%) and lowest in Northern Europe (0.51%). Premature cancer-related mortality costs in Europe are significant. These results provide a novel perspective on the societal cancer burden and may be used to inform priority setting for cancer control., (© 2014 UICC.)