Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) has a unique and complex etiology that is not completely understood. Although NPC is rare in most populations, it is a leading form of cancer in a few well-defined populations, including natives of southern China, Southeast Asia, the Arctic, and the Middle East/North Africa. The distinctive racial/ethnic and geographic distribution of NPC worldwide suggests that both environmental factors and genetic traits contribute to its development. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge regarding the epidemiology of NPC and to propose new avenues of research that could help illuminate the causes and ultimately the prevention of this remarkable disease. Well-established risk factors for NPC include elevated antibody titers against the Epstein-Barr virus, consumption of salt-preserved fish, a family history of NPC, and certain human leukocyte antigen class I genotypes. Consumption of other preserved foods, tobacco smoking, and a history of chronic respiratory tract conditions may be associated with elevated NPC risk, whereas consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and other human leukocyte antigen genotypes may be associated with decreased risk. Evidence for a causal role of various inhalants, herbal medicines, and occupational exposures is inconsistent. Other than dietary modification, no concrete preventive measures for NPC exist. Given the unresolved gaps in understanding of NPC, there is a clear need for large-scale, populationbased molecular epidemiologic studies to elucidate how environmental, viral, and genetic factors interact in both the development and the prevention of this disease. PurposeIntriguing hallmarks of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) include its striking racial/ethnic and geographic variation, as well as its multifactorial etiology involving the interplay of environmental, viral, and genetic risk factors. The precise roles of these factors in the development of NPC, however, remain unknown. The purpose of this review is to highlight what is understood about the epidemiology of NPC, as well as to present unresolved research questions that call for large-scale molecular epidemiologic studies of NPC to illuminate the underlying causes of this fascinating disease. Review MethodsA thorough review of the literature related to the etiology of NPC was undertaken, starting with a Medline search from 1966 onward. Additional papers, book sections, and monographs were identified through examination of reference lists. Because this review aims to present the epidemiologic evidence in a range of topic areas, rather than to calculate overall estimates of effect, formal quantitative methods were not used. All relevant papers have been cited to provide a comprehensive summary of the evidence. Inclusion or exclusion criteria were not applied to individual reports, but the strength, consistency, and relevance of the findings were considered in weighing the evidence.Descriptive Epidemiology

No abstract

5List of abbreviations 6Introduction 8

Radical prostatectomy reduces disease-specific mortality, overall mortality, and the risks of metastasis and local progression. The absolute reduction in the risk of death after 10 years is small, but the reductions in the risks of metastasis and local tumor progression are substantial.

BACKGROUND Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among men with localized prostate cancer; however, important questions regarding long-term benefit remain. METHODS Between 1989 and 1999, we randomly assigned 695 men with early prostate cancer to watchful waiting or radical prostatectomy and followed them through the end of 2012. The primary end points in the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) were death from any cause, death from prostate cancer, and the risk of metastases. Secondary end points included the initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy. RESULTS During 23.2 years of follow-up, 200 of 347 men in the surgery group and 247 of the 348 men in the watchful-waiting group died. Of the deaths, 63 in the surgery group and 99 in the watchful-waiting group were due to prostate cancer; the relative risk was 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.77; P = 0.001), and the absolute difference was 11.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.5 to 17.5). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 8. One man died after surgery in the radical-prostatectomy group. Androgen-deprivation therapy was used in fewer patients who underwent prostatectomy (a difference of 25.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.7 to 32.3). The benefit of surgery with respect to death from prostate cancer was largest in men younger than 65 years of age (relative risk, 0.45) and in those with intermediate-risk prostate cancer (relative risk, 0.38). However, radical pros-tatectomy was associated with a reduced risk of metastases among older men (relative risk, 0.68; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Extended follow-up confirmed a substantial reduction in mortality after radical prostatectomy; the number needed to treat to prevent one death continued to decrease when the treatment was modified according to age at diagnosis and tumor risk. A large proportion of long-term survivors in the watchful-waiting group have not required any palliative treatment. (Funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and others.)

The identification of the TMPRSS2:ERG fusion in prostate cancer suggests that distinct molecular subtypes may define risk for disease progression. In surgical series, TMPRSS2:ERG fusion was identified in 50% of the tumors. Here, we report on a population-based cohort of men with localized prostate cancers followed by expectant (watchful waiting) therapy with 15% (17/111) TMPRSS2:ERG fusion. We identified a statistically significant association between TMPRSS2:ERG fusion and prostate cancer specific death (cumulative incidence ratio ¼ 2.7, Po0.01, 95% confidence interval ¼ 1.3-5.8).Quantitative reverse-transcription-polymerase chain reaction demonstrated high estrogen-regulated gene (ERG) expression to be associated with TMPRSS2:ERG fusion (Po0.005). These data suggest that TMPRSS2:ERG fusion prostate cancers may have a more aggressive phenotype, possibly mediated through increased ERG expression.

A substantial excess risk of lymphomas and nonmelanoma skin cancer has been demonstrated following organ transplantation. Large sample size and long follow-up time may, however, allow more accurate risk estimates and detailed understanding of long-term cancer risk. The objective of the study was to assess the risk of cancer following organ transplantation. A nationwide cohort study comprising 5931 patients who underwent transplantation of kidney, liver or other organs during 1970 -1997 in Sweden was conducted. Complete follow-up was accomplished through linkage to nationwide databases. We used comparisons with the entire Swedish population to calculate standardised incidence ratios (SIRs), and Poisson regression for multivariate internal analyses of relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Overall, we observed 692 incident first cancers vs 171 expected (SIR 4.0; 95% CI 3.7 -4.4). We confirmed marked excesses of nonmelanoma skin cancer (SIR 56.2; 95% CI 49.8 -63.2), lip cancer (SIR 53.3; 95% CI 38.0 -72.5) and of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (SIR 6.0; 95% CI 4.4 -8.0). Compared with patients who underwent kidney transplantation, those who received other organs were at substantially higher risk of NHL (RR 8.4; 95% CI 4.3 -16). Besides, we found, significantly, about 20-fold excess risk of cancer of the vulva and vagina, 10-fold of anal cancer, and five-fold of oral cavity and kidney cancer, as well as two-to four-fold excesses of cancer in the oesophagus, stomach, large bowel, urinary bladder, lung and thyroid gland. In conclusion, organ transplantation entails a persistent, about four-fold increased overall cancer risk. The complex pattern of excess risk at many sites challenges current understanding of oncogenic infections that might become activated by immunologic alterations.

Importance Estimates of familial cancer risk from population-based studies are essential components of cancer risk prediction. Objective To estimate familial risk and heritability of cancer types in a large twin cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants Prospective study of 80 309 monozygotic and 123 382 same-sex dizygotic twin individuals (N = 203 691) within the population-based registers of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Twins were followed up a median of 32 years between 1943 and 2010. There were 50 990 individuals who died of any cause, and 3804 who emigrated and were lost to follow-up. Exposures Shared environmental and heritable risk factors among pairs of twins. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was incident cancer. Time-to-event analyses were used to estimate familial risk (risk of cancer in an individual given a twin's development of cancer) and heritability (proportion of variance in cancer risk due to interindividual genetic differences) with follow-up via cancer registries. Statistical models adjusted for age and follow-up time, and accounted for censoring and competing risk of death. Results A total of 27 156 incident cancers were diagnosed in 23 980 individuals, translating to a cumulative incidence of 32%. Cancer was diagnosed in both twins among 1383 monozygotic (2766 individuals) and 1933 dizygotic (2866 individuals) pairs. Of these, 38% of monozygotic and 26% of dizygotic pairs were diagnosed with the same cancer type. There was an excess cancer risk in twins whose co-twin was diagnosed with cancer, with estimated cumulative risks that were an absolute 5% (95% CI, 4%-6%) higher in dizygotic (37%; 95% CI, 36%-38%) and an absolute 14% (95% CI, 12%-16%) higher in monozygotic twins (46%; 95% CI, 44%-48%) whose twin also developed cancer compared with the cumulative risk in the overall cohort (32%). For most cancer types, there were significant familial risks and the cumulative risks were higher in monozygotic than dizygotic twins. Heritability of cancer overall was 33% (95% CI, 30%-37%). Significant heritability was observed for the cancer types of skin melanoma (58%; 95% CI, 43%-73%), prostate (57%; 95% CI, 51%-63%), nonmelanoma skin (43%; 95% CI, 26%-59%), ovary (39%; 95% CI, 23%-55%), kidney (38%; 95% CI, 21%-55%), breast (31%; 95% CI, 11%-51%), and corpus uteri (27%; 95% CI, 11%-43%). Conclusions and Relevance In this long-term follow-up study among Nordic twins, there was significant excess familial risk for cancer overall and for specific types of cancer, including prostate, melanoma, breast, ovary, and uterus. This information about hereditary risks of cancers may be helpful in patient education and cancer risk counseling.