Abstract 321P
Background
Genitourinary cancer presents a significant global public health challenge. The Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) databases are currently the two primary sources of cancer data in the world. This study compared the epidemiologic patterns of genitourinary cancer between GLOBOCAN 2020 and GBD 2019 and explored the hypotheses on the underlying causes for disparities observed.
Methods
Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) and age-standardized mortality rates (ASMR) for prostate, testicular, kidney, and bladder cancers were obtained from GLOBOCAN and GBD databases, focusing only on countries reporting an incidence or death number of more than 1,000 cases. Additionally, a systematic literature search of the GLOBOCAN and GBD databases was also performed.
Results
ASIR for prostate, testicular, and bladder cancers as well as ASMR for prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers were generally higher in GBD than in GLOBOCAN. The countries with the greatest differences in ASIR are Lebanon (2.59-fold), China (4.12-fold), Indonesia (2.83-fold) and Pakistan (2.59-fold) in prostate, testicular, kidney, and bladder cancer, respectively. The countries with the greatest differences in ASMR are Pakistan (4.18-fold), Indonesia (2.80-fold), and Pakistan (3.38-fold) in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer, respectively. The average ASIR ratios for prostate, testicular, kidney, and bladder cancers of GLOBOCAN and GBD were 1.34, 1.70, 1.24, and 1.30, respectively, whereas the average ASMR ratios for prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers were 1.97, 1.40, and 1.57, respectively.
Conclusions
Discrepancies in ASIR for testicular and bladder cancers as well as that in ASMR for prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers were observed between GLOBOCAN and GBD datasets. This variation can be attributed primarily to the lack of well-established population-based cancer registries and healthcare administrative systems in numerous low- and middle-income countries at the national or district level.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.