Abstract 508P
Background
Several population-based cancer registries (CRs) gather data on stage and treatment, which can be used to assess care patterns among regions. The current analysis reports on treatment by stage for colorectal cancer in Europe.
Methods
Data from CRs in the European Cancer Information System (ECIS) having submitted data on stage and treatment for the ENCR-JRC project (2015 data call) were analysed. Colorectal cancer carcinomas with a C18-C20 diagnosis code according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third edition (ICD-O-3) were selected. Proportion of cases by treatment type was calculated for surgery (SG), radiotherapy (RT), systemic therapy (ST) by site, stage, age group (19-75 vs 75+), period of diagnosis (1998-2005 vs 2006-2014), and European region.
Results
1,340,043 cases from 22 CRs were analysed. Stage IIA Colon cancer patients diagnosed in 1998-2005 and aged 19-74 received SG alone (74%) and SG+ST (20%), stage IIB patients had SG alone (58%) and SG+ST (30%). In 2006-2014 stage IIA had similar values, whereas for IIB cases SG alone decreased to 54% and SG+ST rose to 38%. In Eastern Europe (EE) in 2006-2014 SG+ST was provided to 25% and 31% of stage IIA and IIB cases respectively, whereas proportions were 17-41% in Western Europe (WE), 17-44% in Southern Europe (SE), 28-51% in Northern Europe (NE). For stage III Rectum cancer, SG+ST+RT (considered as standard treatment) was performed on 44% of patients aged 19-74 in 2006-2014, ranging from 32% in EE to 65% in SE. Standard treatment was performed on 22% of patients aged 75+, from 12% in EE to 44% in SE.
Conclusions
Treatment patterns variability was observed by site, stage, age, period and region. A SG+ST increase in Colon cancer stage IIB cases, which could benefit because of higher recurrence risk, was reported. Data shows that for stage III Rectal cancer more patients could benefit from the standard treatment in some areas and age groups. The routine linkage between high quality data from CRs, like staging, with clinical information such as treatment or biomarkers could be strategic. This would allow monitoring the application of national and international recommendations in clinical care patterns, comparing the levels of guideline compliance and discussing the reasons for differences.
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.