Survival of European adolescents and young adults diagnosed with cancer in 2000–07: population-based data from EUROCARE-5

doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00162-5

The Lancet Oncology

Volume 17, Issue 7, July 2016, Pages 896-906

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00162-5 Get rights and content

Summary

Background

Data from EUROCARE have consistently shown lower survival for adolescents and young adults (AYAs; aged 15–24 years) than for children (0–14 years) for most cancers that affect both groups, and modest survival improvements up to 2000–02. AYAs have longer survival than that of adults for most cancers. We used the latest definition of AYAs (aged 15–39 years) and provided estimates of 5-year relative survival for European AYAs with cancer diagnosed in 2000–07, compared with children and adults (40–69 years) with cancer, and assessed survival improvements over time.

Methods

We analysed data from population-based cancer registries of 27 European countries participating in EUROCARE-5. We used the so-called complete method to estimate 5-year, population-weighted relative survival for 19 cancers affecting AYAs and children, and for 27 cancers affecting AYAs and adults. We assessed relative-survival differences between children versus AYAs, and between AYAs versus adults, using the Z test. We used the period approach to estimate 5-year relative survival over time for children and AYAs, and used a generalised linear model to model survival time trends (1999–2007) and to assess the significance of changes over time.

Findings

We analysed 56 505 cancer diagnoses in children, 312 483 in AYAs, and 3 567 383 in adults. For all cancers combined, survival improved over time for AYAs (from 79% [95% CI 78·1–80·5] in 1999–2002 to 82% [81·1–83·3] in 2005–07; p<0·0001) and children (from 76% [74·7–77·1] to 79% [77·2–79·4]; p<0·0001). Survival improved significantly in children and AYAs for acute lymphoid leukaemia (p<0·0001) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (p<0·0001 in AYAs and p=0·023 in children). Survival improved significantly in AYAs only for CNS tumours (p=0·0046), astrocytomas (p=0·040), and malignant melanomas (p<0·0001). Survival remained significantly worse in AYAs than in children for eight important cancers: acute lymphoid leukaemias, acute myeloid leukaemias, Hodgkin's lymphomas, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, astrocytomas, Ewing's sarcomas, and rhabdomyosarcomas (p<0·0001 in all cases), and osteosarcomas (p=0·011).

Interpretation

Notwithstanding the encouraging results for some cancers, and overall, we showed poorer survival in AYAs than in children for the eight important cancers. Recent European initiatives to improve outcomes in AYAs might reduce the survival gap between children and AYAs, but this reduction can only be verified by future population-based studies.

Funding

Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission.

Introduction

No internationally agreed definition exists for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) for cancer purposes; age ranges of 15–24 years and 15–29 years (at cancer diagnosis) have been used. EUROCARE¹ has shown that AYAs (aged 15–24 years) have poorer survival than children (aged 0–14 years) for most cancers that affect both groups, and survival improvements up to 2000–02 were modest. Additionally, AYAs (aged 15–29 years) have better survival than adults for most cancers.² Poorer survival in AYAs than in children has been attributed to various factors including no or few clinical trials conducted in AYAs, the dearth of specific treatment guidelines, differences in cancer biology, variations in the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapeutic agents, and delays in diagnosis and treatment.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AYAs with cancer are, in many ways, neglected by both paediatric and adult oncologists, yet effective disease management necessitates a multiprofessional approach incorporating expertise from both specialties.⁸ To improve cancer outcomes for AYAs, various initiatives—including promoting collaboration between paediatric and adult oncologists, developing national policies for managing AYAs with cancer, and setting up specific treatment units—have been implemented in several European countries⁸ and worldwide.⁹

In the present EUROCARE-5 study, we used the latest definition of AYAs (age 15–39 years) proposed by the US National Cancer Institute¹⁰ and accepted by the European Network for Cancer in Children and Adolescents (ENCCA) to provide population-based analyses of 5-year relative survival for European AYAs with cancer, compared with survival in children (aged 0–14 years) and adults (aged 40–69 years). We also present time trends in 5-year relative survival for cancers typically occurring in AYAs and children, to assess whether survival improvements in the older age group still lag behind those in children. The time period of our analyses pre-dates implementation of the European initiatives to improve outcomes for AYAs, and thus provides an important baseline from which to assess the effectiveness of these initiatives.

Research in context

Evidence before this study

There is no internationally agreed definition of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) for cancer purposes; age ranges of 15–24 years and 15–29 years (at cancer diagnosis) have been used. The US National Cancer Institute proposed defining AYAs as those aged 15–39 years at diagnosis. The European Network for Cancer in Children and Adolescents has adopted this definition and is promoting its use in Europe. Less is known about factors that affect cancer incidence, outcomes, and quality of life in AYAs than other age groups. Furthermore AYAs with cancer have not had the same mortality reduction seen in recent years in younger and older patients with cancer (for some cancers). To try to improve outcomes for AYAs with cancer, various initiatives—including the promotion of collaboration between paediatric and adult oncologists, development of national policies for managing AYAs with cancer, and setting up of AYA-specific treatment units—have been implemented in several European countries. Over the past 5 years population-based analyses of incidence and outcomes for AYAs with cancer have been completed in France, the Netherlands, and the UK. However, the latest survival analysis for Europe as a whole was provided by EUROCARE-4 for patients aged 15–24 years who were diagnosed in 1995–2002.

Added value of this study

The present EUROCARE-5 study provides the latest population-based, 5-year relative survival estimates for European AYAs (aged 15–39 years at diagnosis) compared with children (0–14 years) and adults (40–69 years), diagnosed with cancer in 2000–07. The study also provides survival time trends (1999–2007) for AYAs and children, and assesses whether survival improvements in AYAs still lag behind those in children; and, for the first time to our knowledge, analyses survival differences between AYAs and adults. We found that survival improved during the study period for both AYAs and children with cancer in Europe, and that survival improvements were similar in both these age categories. This finding contrasts with previous results that AYAs lag behind children in terms of survival improvement. However, survival remained significantly worse in AYAs than in children for acute lymphoid leukaemia, acute myeloid leukaemia, Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, astrocytoma, Ewing's sarcoma of bone, rhabdomyosarcoma, and osteosarcoma; and for acute myeloid leukaemia, soft-tissue sarcomas, and fibrosarcomas, survival remained unchanged for AYAs over the study period. These findings are in line with data from earlier time periods (1995–2002).

Implications of all the available evidence

AYAs have worse survival than children for many cancers affecting both groups, justifying initiatives to improve outcomes for adolescents and young adults. For cancers affecting AYAs and children, it has been suggested that AYAs should be treated in an integrated paediatric–adult multidisciplinary setting. This integration would increase the likelihood of inclusion in clinical trails, and improve family and social support. For AYAs with acute lymphoid leukaemia, data clearly indicate that although tumour biology is relatively unfavourable in this group, application of paediatric treatment protocols is feasibile and improves outcomes. However, robust evidence that regimens used to treat children actually benefit AYAs is only available for acute lymphoid leukaemia. Thus, further studies are needed to understand why survival improvements in AYAs lag behind those in children for many important cancers affecting both. The time of these analyses (patients diagnosed in 2000–07, and followed up until at least the end of 2008) pre-dates implementation of European initiatives to improve outcomes, and thus provides important baseline data to evaluate whether initiatives will lead to improved survival in European AYAs with cancer.

Section snippets

Study design and data collection

We used data provided by European population-based cancer registries participating in EUROCARE-5.¹¹ Registries provided information on the site and morphology of each cancer diagnosed, which was coded according to the International Classification of Disease for Oncology third revision (ICD-O-3).¹² Data for AYAs and for adults were provided by 97 of the 99 cancer registries contributing to the EUROCARE-5 adult database.¹³

Data for cancers in children were supplied by 72 of the 74 cancer

Results

Table 1 shows the numbers of cancers in AYAs, diagnosed in 2000–07, with main data quality indicators for both combined (adolescents and young adults) by country. 18 721 (6%) of 316 799 cancers occurred in adolescents and 298 078 (94%) of 316 799 cancers occurred in young adults. Only 4316 (1·4%) of 316 799 cancers in AYAs were excluded: 1939 (0·6%) cancers because these were ascertained from death certificate or autopsy only; 1215 (0·4%) because these were censored immediately after diagnosis

Discussion

Two major findings of our study were that survival improved over time (1999–2007) for both AYAs and children with cancer in Europe, and that the level of improvement was similar in both groups. Thus, the slower survival improvement reported by Bleyer and colleagues,² up to the 1990s for AYAs in the USA compared with children, seems not to be present in Europeans diagnosed more recently.

Another major finding of our study was that, overall, AYAs had slightly better 5-year relative survival than

References (31)

G Gatta et al.
Survival of European children and young adults with cancer diagnosed 1995–2002
Eur J Cancer
(2009)
WA Wood et al.
Malignant hematologic diseases in adolescents and young adults
Blood
(2011)
M Wilhelm et al.
ENCCA WP17-WP7 consensus paper on teenagers and young adults (TYA) with bone sarcomas
Ann Oncol
(2014)
R De Angelis et al.
Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5—a population based study
Lancet Oncol
(2014)
G Gatta et al.
Childhood cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007: results of EUROCARE-5—a population-based study
Lancet Oncol
(2014)
W Stock et al.
What determines the outcomes for adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated on cooperative group protocols? A comparison of Children's Cancer Group and Cancer and Leukemia Group B studies
Blood
(2008)
A Micheli et al.
The advantage of women in cancer survival: an analysis of EUROCARE-4 data
Eur J Cancer
(2009)
Y Ofran et al.
Acute myeloid leukemia in adolescents and young adults: challenging aspects
Acta Haematol
(2014)
A Ferrari et al.
The challenge of access to care for soft tissue sarcomas bridging pediatric and adultage: the Italian pediatriconcology view
Expert Rev Anticancer Ther
(2012)

G Bisogno et al.

Rhabdomyosarcoma in adolescents: a report from the AIEOP Soft Tissue Sarcoma Committee

Cancer

(2012)

D Stark et al.

Teenagers and young adults with cancer in Europe: from national programmes to a European integrated coordinated project

Eur J Cancer Care

(2015)

R Barr et al.

International working group on adolescent/teenage and young adult oncology

Pediatr Blood Cancer

(2008)

Closing the gap: research and care imperatives for adolescents and young adults with cancers

Conclusions of the MAC roundtable “Key determinants of inequalities in cancer survival across Europe” (EP, 05 12. 2013)

Cited by (204)

Survival of European adolescents and young adults diagnosed with cancer in 2010–2014
2024, European Journal of Cancer
We used the comprehensive definition of AYA (age 15 to 39 years) to update 5-year relative survival (RS) estimates for AYAs in Europe and across countries and to evaluate improvements in survival over time.
We used data from EUROCARE-6. We analysed 700,000 AYAs with cancer diagnosed in 2000–2013 (follow-up to 2014). We focused the analyses on the 12 most common cancers in AYA. We used period analysis to estimate 5-year RS in Europe and 5-year RS differences in 29 countries (2010–2014 period estimate) and over time (2004–06 vs. 2010–14 period estimates).
5-year RS for all AYA tumours was 84%, ranging from 70% to 90% for most of the 12 tumours analysed. The exceptions were acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, acute myeloid leukaemia, and central nervous system tumours, presenting survival of 59%, 61%, and 62%, respectively. Differences in survival were observed among European countries for all cancers, except thyroid cancers and ovarian germ-cell tumours. Survival improved over time for most cancers in the 15- to 39-year-old age group, but for fewer cancers in adolescents and 20- to 29-year-olds.
This is the most comprehensive study to report the survival of 12 cancers in AYAs in 29 European countries. We showed variability in survival among countries most likely due to differences in stage at diagnosis, access to treatment, and lack of referral to expert centres. Survival has improved especially for haematological cancers. Further efforts are needed to improve survival for other cancers as well, especially in adolescents.
The increasing burden of testicular seminomas and non-seminomas in adolescents and young adults (AYAs): incidence, treatment, disease-specific survival and mortality trends in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2019
2024, ESMO Open
Testicular cancer incidence among adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 18-39 years at diagnosis) is increasing worldwide and most patients will survive the initial disease. Still, detailed epidemiological information about testicular cancer among AYAs is scarce. This study aimed to provide a detailed overview of testicular cancer trends in incidence, treatment, long-term relative survival and mortality by histological subtype among AYAs diagnosed in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2019.
Data of all malignant testicular cancers (ICD-code C62) were extracted from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Mortality data were retrieved from Statistics Netherlands. European age-standardized incidence and mortality rates with average annual percentage change statistics and relative survival estimates up to 20 years of follow-up were calculated.
A total of 12 528 testicular cancers were diagnosed between 1989 and 2019. Comparing 1989-1999 to 2010-2019, the incidence increased from 4.4 to 11.4 for seminomas and from 5.7 to 11.1 per 100 000 person-years for non-seminomas. Rising trends were most prominent for localized disease. Radiotherapy use in localized testicular seminomas declined from 78% in 1989-1993 to 5% in 2015-2019. Meanwhile, there was a slight increase in chemotherapy use. Most AYAs with localized seminomas and non-seminomas received active surveillance only (>80%). Overall, relative survival estimates remained well above 90% even at 20 years of follow-up for both seminomas and non-seminomas. Mortality rates declined from 0.5 to 0.4 per 100 000 person-years between 1989-1999 and 2010-2019.
The incidence of seminoma and non-seminoma testicular cancers significantly increased in AYAs in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2019. There was a shift towards less-aggressive treatment regimens without negative survival effects. Relative survival estimates remained well above 90% at 20 years of follow-up in most cases. Testicular cancer mortality was already low, but has improved further over time, which makes survivorship care an important issue for these young adults.
Niclosamide: A career builder PART I: (Almost) Everything You Wanted To Know About Niclosamide But Were Too Afraid To Ask PART II: Nanomedicines? A Carrier-Free Nanomedicine for Cancer and a Simple Buffered Solution to Prevent COVID19 and Other Respiratory Infections: They Just Need Testing Invited Manuscript: J Controlled Release VSI in Honor of Prof. Park
2024, Journal of Controlled Release
My contribution to honoring Professor Kinam Park celebrates and resonates with his scholarly career in drug delivery, his commitment to encouraging the next generation(s), and his efforts to keep us focused on clinically effective formulations. To do this I take as my example, niclosamide, a small molecule protonophore that, uniquely, can “target” all cell membranes, both plasma and organelle. As such, it acts upstream of many cell pathways and so has the potential to affect many of the essential events that a cell, and particularly a diseased cell or other entities like a virus, use to stay alive and prosper. Literature shows that it has so far been discovered to positively influence (at least): cancer, bacterial and viral infection, metabolic diseases such as Type II diabetes, NASH and NAFLD, artery constriction, endometriosis, neuropathic pain, rheumatoid arthritis, sclerodermatous graft-versus-host disease, systemic sclerosis, Parkinson's, and COPD. With such a fundamental action and broad-spectrum activity, I believe that studying niclosamide in all its manifestations, discovering if and to what extent it can contribute positively to disease control (and also where it can't), formulating it as effective therapeutics, and testing them in preclinical and clinical trials is a career builder for our next generation(s).
The article is divided into two parts: Part I introduces niclosamide and other proton shunts mainly in cancer and viral infections and reviews an exponentially growing literature with some concepts and physicochemical properties that lead to its proton shunt mechanism. Part II focuses on repurposing by reformulation of niclosamide. I give two examples of “carrier-free formulations”, — one for cancer (as a prodrug therapeutic of niclosamide stearate for i.v. and other administration routes, exemplified by our recent work on Osteosarcoma in mice and canine patients), and the other as a niclosamide solution formulation (that could provide the basis for a preventative nasal spray and early treatment option for COVID19 and other respiratory virus infections).
My goal is to excite and enthuse, encourage, and motivate all involved in the drug development and testing process in academia, institutes, and industry, to learn more about this interesting molecule and others like it. To enable such endeavors, I give many proposed ideas throughout the document, that have been stimulated and inspired by gaps in the literature, urgent needs in disease, and new studies arising from our own work. The hope is that, by reading through this document and studying the suggested topics and references, the drug delivery and development community will continue our lineage and benefit from our legacy to achieve niclosamide's potential as an effective contributor to the treatment and control of many diseases and conditions.
ctDNA quantification improves estimation of outcomes in patients with high-grade osteosarcoma: a translational study from the OS2006 trial
2024, Annals of Oncology
Osteosarcoma stratification relies on clinical parameters and histological response. We developed a new personalized stratification using less invasive circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) quantification.
Plasma from patients homogeneously treated in the prospective protocol OS2006, at diagnosis, before surgery and end of treatment, were sequenced using low-passage whole-genome sequencing (lpWGS) for copy number alteration detection. We developed a prediction tool including ctDNA quantification and known clinical parameters to estimate patients’ individual risk of event.
ctDNA quantification at diagnosis (diagCPA) was evaluated for 183 patients of the protocol OS2006. diagCPA as a continuous variable was a major prognostic factor, independent of other clinical parameters, including metastatic status [diagCPA hazard ratio (HR) = 3.5, P = 0.002 and 3.51, P = 0.012, for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)]. At the time of surgery and until the end of treatment, diagCPA was also a major prognostic factor independent of histological response (diagCPA HR = 9.2, P < 0.001 and 11.6, P < 0.001, for PFS and OS). Therefore, the addition of diagCPA to metastatic status at diagnosis or poor histological response after surgery improved the prognostic stratification of patients with osteosarcoma. We developed the prediction tool PRONOS to generate individual risk estimations, showing great performance ctDNA quantification at the time of surgery and the end of treatment still required improvement to overcome the low sensitivity of lpWGS and to enable the follow-up of disease progression.
The addition of ctDNA quantification to known risk factors improves the estimation of prognosis calculated by our prediction tool PRONOS. To confirm its value, an external validation in the Sarcoma 13 trial is underway.
Long-term second primary cancer risk in adolescent and young adult (15-39 years) cancer survivors: a population-based study in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2018
2024, ESMO Open
Few studies have comprehensively investigated the long-term second cancer risk among adolescent and young adult (AYA, aged 15-39 years) cancer survivors. This study investigated the long-term second cancer risk by including the full range of first and second cancer combinations with at least 10 observations in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2018.
First and second primary cancer data of all 6-month AYA cancer survivors were obtained from the nationwide population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Excess cancer risk compared to the general population was assessed with standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and absolute excess risk (AER) statistics up to 25 years after diagnosis. Cumulative incidences were estimated, using death as a competing risk factor. Analyses were carried out with and without applying multiple cancer rules.
The cohort included 99 502 AYA cancer survivors. Male survivors had a 2-fold higher risk of developing any cancer compared to the general population, whereas this was around 1.3-fold in females. AERs were 17.5 and 10.1 per 10 000 person-years for males and females. The long-term excess risk of cancer was significantly higher for most first and second primary cancer combinations, but comparable and lower risk estimates were also observed. Application of the multiple cancer rules resulted in a noticeable risk underestimation in melanoma, testicular, and breast cancer survivors. Risk outcomes remained similar in most cases otherwise. The cumulative incidence of second cancer overall increased over time up to 8.9% in males and 10.3% in females at 25 years’ follow-up. Highest long-term cumulative incidences were observed among lymphoma survivors (13.3% males and 18.9% females).
AYA cancer survivors have a higher cancer risk compared to the general population for most cancers up to 25 years after their initial cancer diagnosis. Additional studies that investigate risk factors for the specific cancer type combinations are needed to develop personalized follow-up strategies.
Pencil Beam Scanning Proton Therapy for Adolescents and Young Adults with Head and Neck Sarcomas
2023, International Journal of Particle Therapy
To assess clinical outcomes of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with head and neck sarcomas (HNSs) treated with pencil beam scanning proton therapy (PBSPT) and to report quality of life (QoL).
Twenty-eight AYAs (aged 15 to 39 years) with HNS treated between January 2001 and July 2022 at our institution were included. The median age was 21.6 years. Rhabdomyosarcoma (39.3%), Ewing sarcoma (17.9%), chondrosarcoma (14.3%), and osteosarcoma (14.3%) were the most frequent diagnoses. Three (10.7%) patients were metastatic before PBSPT and 13 (46.4%) patients had a tumor with intracranial extension. The median total radiation dose was 63 GyRBE (range, 45 to 74 GyRBE). Thirteen (46.4%) patients received concomitant chemotherapy. Toxicity was reported according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5.0 (US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland). Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. QoL was assessed using a PEDQOL (Pediatric Quality of Life Questionnaire) questionnaire. Self-reported outcomes were assessed using institutional questionnaires.
With a median follow-up of 57 months (range, 3.7 to 243 months), 5 patients (17.8%) had local failure (LF) only, 2 (7.1%) experienced distant failure (DF) only, and 2 (7.1%) had LF and DF. The estimated 5-year local control (LC) and distant control (DC) rates were 71.8% and 80.5%, respectively. The median times to LF and DF were 13.4 and 22.2 months, respectively. Four (14.3%) patients died, all but one from their HNS. Estimated 5-year overall survival was 90.7%. Six (21.4%) patients developed nonocular grade ≥3 toxicity, which consisted of otitis media (n = 2), hearing impairment (n = 2), osteoradionecrosis (n = 1), and sinusitis (n = 1). Four (14.3%) patients developed cataracts that required surgery. The 5-year freedom from nonocular grade 3 toxicity was 91.1%. No grade 4 or higher toxicity was observed. Adolescents rated their quality of life before treatment worse than their parents did.
Excellent outcomes with acceptable late-toxicity rates were observed for AYAs with HNS after PBSPT.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^†: Members of EUROCARE-5 Working Group are listed in the appendix

View full text

ArticlesSurvival of European adolescents and young adults diagnosed with cancer in 2000–07: population-based data from EUROCARE-5