Dataset Information

The need for a rapid and comprehensive adoption of the revised European standard population in cancer incidence comparisons.

ABSTRACT: As cancer incidence varies according to age, it is important to rule out differences in age structures in any comparison. A common way of adjusting for these differences is using direct age standardization, which applies age-specific weights from a standard population. Eurostat has recently introduced a revised European standard population (RESP). The effect of using the new standard, in comparison with that introduced in 1976 [European standard population (ESP)], is evaluated. Cancer incidence data for prostate and testis cancer for Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland from the NORDCAN web site, and for Ireland and Italy-Genoa from Cancer Incidence in five Continents-X, were analyzed. Incidence rates were directly age standardized using ESP and RESP. The RESP conferred greater weight to adults and the elderly than the ESP. For prostate cancer, age-standardized rates computed with RESP are consistently higher by between 50 and 60% than those computed with ESP. However, the use of RESP, instead of ESP, has little impact on the pattern of time trends, the relative ranking of countries, the values of relative risks, or the percentage differences between age-standardized rates. For testis cancer, RESP and ESP provide very similar results because this cancer is more common in young men. Both ESP and RESP are in circulation. It is, therefore, important that European cancer registries reach consensus on a single standard to use to avoid erroneous comparisons of data computed with different standards. Given that Eurostat recently introduced RESP and is using this standard for data collected from the European Union Member States, it would make sense to rally behind RESP.

SUBMITTER: Crocetti E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5553232 | biostudies-other | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Near-term iterative forecasting is a powerful tool for ecological decision support and has the potential to transform our understanding of ecological predictability. However, to this point, there has been no cross-ecosystem analysis of near-term ecological forecasts, making it difficult to synthesize diverse research efforts and prioritize future developments for this emerging field. In this study, we analyzed 178 near-term (≤10-yr forecast horizon) ecological forecasting papers to understand the development and current state of near-term ecological forecasting literature and to compare forecast accuracy across scales and variables. Our results indicated that near-term ecological forecasting is widespread and growing: forecasts have been produced for sites on all seven continents and the rate of forecast publication is increasing over time. As forecast production has accelerated, some best practices have been proposed and application of these best practices is increasing. In particular, data publication, forecast archiving, and workflow automation have all increased significantly over time. However, adoption of proposed best practices remains low overall: for example, despite the fact that uncertainty is often cited as an essential component of an ecological forecast, only 45% of papers included uncertainty in their forecast outputs. As the use of these proposed best practices increases, near-term ecological forecasting has the potential to make significant contributions to our understanding of forecastability across scales and variables. In this study, we found that forecastability (defined here as realized forecast accuracy) decreased in predictable patterns over 1-7 d forecast horizons. Variables that were closely related (i.e., chlorophyll and phytoplankton) displayed very similar trends in forecastability, while more distantly related variables (i.e., pollen and evapotranspiration) exhibited significantly different patterns. Increasing use of proposed best practices in ecological forecasting will allow us to examine the forecastability of additional variables and timescales in the future, providing a robust analysis of the fundamental predictability of ecological variables.

Project description:This document updates the recommendations on the management of Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (Ph-neg MPNs) published in 2011 by the European LeukemiaNet (ELN) consortium. Recommendations were produced by multiple-step formalized procedures of group discussion. A critical appraisal of evidence by using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was performed in the areas where at least one randomized clinical trial was published. Seven randomized controlled trials provided the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Key differences from the 2011 diagnostic recommendations included: lower threshold values for hemoglobin and hematocrit and bone marrow examination for diagnosis of polycythemia vera (PV), according to the revised WHO criteria; the search for complementary clonal markers, such as ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/IDH2, and SRSF2 for the diagnosis of myelofibrosis (MF) in patients who test negative for JAK2V617, CALR or MPL driver mutations. Regarding key differences of therapy recommendations, both recombinant interferon alpha and the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor ruxolitinib are recommended as second-line therapies for PV patients who are intolerant or have inadequate response to hydroxyurea. Ruxolitinib is recommended as first-line approach for MF-associated splenomegaly in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk disease; in case of intermediate-1 disease, ruxolitinib is recommended in highly symptomatic splenomegaly. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation is recommended for transplant-eligible MF patients with high or intermediate-2 risk score. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation is also recommended for transplant-eligible MF patients with intermediate-1 risk score who present with either refractory, transfusion-dependent anemia, blasts in peripheral blood > 2%, adverse cytogenetics, or high-risk mutations. In these situations, the transplant procedure should be performed in a controlled setting.

Dataset Information

The need for a rapid and comprehensive adoption of the revised European standard population in cancer incidence comparisons.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets