Hannah K Weir1, Christopher J Johnson2, Kevin C Ward3, Michel P Coleman4. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy. MS-F76, Atlanta, GA, 30341, USA. hweir@cdc.gov. 2. Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, ID, USA. 3. Georgia Center for Cancer Statistics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: An examination of multiple primary cancers can provide insight into the etiologic role of genes, the environment, and prior cancer treatment on a cancer patient's risk of developing a subsequent cancer. Different rules for registering multiple primary cancers (MP) are used by cancer registries throughout the world making data comparisons difficult. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of SEER and IARC/IACR rules on cancer incidence rates and trends using data from the SEER Program. We estimated age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and trends (1975-2011) for the top 26 cancer categories using joinpoint regression analysis. RESULTS: ASIRs were higher using SEER compared to IARC/IACR rules for all cancers combined (3 %) and, in rank order, melanoma (9 %), female breast (7 %), urinary bladder (6 %), colon (4 %), kidney and renal pelvis (4 %), oral cavity and pharynx (3 %), lung and bronchus (2 %), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2 %). ASIR differences were largest for patients aged 65+ years. Trends were similar using both MP rules with the exception of cancers of the urinary bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of multiple primary coding rules effects incidence rates and trends. Compared to SEER MP coding rules, IARC/IACR rules are less complex, have not changed over time, and report fewer multiple primary cancers, particularly cancers that occur in paired organs, at the same anatomic site and with the same or related histologic type. Cancer registries collecting incidence data using SEER rules may want to consider including incidence rates and trends using IARC/IACR rules to facilitate international data comparisons.
PURPOSE: An examination of multiple primary cancers can provide insight into the etiologic role of genes, the environment, and prior cancer treatment on a cancer patient's risk of developing a subsequent cancer. Different rules for registering multiple primary cancers (MP) are used by cancer registries throughout the world making data comparisons difficult. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of SEER and IARC/IACR rules on cancer incidence rates and trends using data from the SEER Program. We estimated age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and trends (1975-2011) for the top 26 cancer categories using joinpoint regression analysis. RESULTS: ASIRs were higher using SEER compared to IARC/IACR rules for all cancers combined (3 %) and, in rank order, melanoma (9 %), female breast (7 %), urinary bladder (6 %), colon (4 %), kidney and renal pelvis (4 %), oral cavity and pharynx (3 %), lung and bronchus (2 %), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2 %). ASIR differences were largest for patients aged 65+ years. Trends were similar using both MP rules with the exception of cancers of the urinary bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of multiple primary coding rules effects incidence rates and trends. Compared to SEER MP coding rules, IARC/IACR rules are less complex, have not changed over time, and report fewer multiple primary cancers, particularly cancers that occur in paired organs, at the same anatomic site and with the same or related histologic type. Cancer registries collecting incidence data using SEER rules may want to consider including incidence rates and trends using IARC/IACR rules to facilitate international data comparisons.
Authors: K Filali; G Hédelin; P Schaffer; J Estève; P Arveux; C Bouchardy; C Exbrayat; J Faivre; F Lévi; J Macé-Lesech; D Pottier; J Torhorst Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Limin X Clegg; Eric J Feuer; Douglas N Midthune; Michael P Fay; Benjamin F Hankey Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Hannah K Weir; Helena Carreira; Rhea Harewood; Devon Spika; Xiao-Si Wang; Finian Bannon; Jane V Ahn; Christopher J Johnson; Audrey Bonaventure; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Charles Stiller; Gulnar Azevedo e Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Bernard Rachet; Matthew J Soeberg; Hui You; Tomohiro Matsuda; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Hans Storm; Thomas C Tucker; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michel P Coleman; Manuela Quaresma; Franco Berrino; Jean-Michel Lutz; Roberta De Angelis; Riccardo Capocaccia; Paolo Baili; Bernard Rachet; Gemma Gatta; Timo Hakulinen; Andrea Micheli; Milena Sant; Hannah K Weir; J Mark Elwood; Hideaki Tsukuma; Sergio Koifman; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Silvia Francisci; Mariano Santaquilani; Arduino Verdecchia; Hans H Storm; John L Young Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Rolando A R Villacis; Tatiane R Basso; Luisa M Canto; Maísa Pinheiro; Karina M Santiago; Juliana Giacomazzi; Cláudia A A de Paula; Dirce M Carraro; Patrícia Ashton-Prolla; Maria I Achatz; Silvia R Rogatto Journal: J Mol Med (Berl) Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Adi Nosrati; Wesley Y Yu; Joseph McGuire; Ann Griffin; Juliana Rocha de Souza; Rasnik Singh; Eleni Linos; Mary Margaret Chren; Barbara Grimes; Nicholas P Jewell; Maria L Wei Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 7.590