The prevalence of atopic eczema has been found to have increased greatly in some parts of the world. Building on a systematic review of global disease trends in asthma, our objective was to study trends in incidence and prevalence of atopic eczema. Disease trends are important for health service planning and for generating hypotheses regarding the aetiology of chronic disorders. We conducted a systematic search for high quality reports of cohort, repeated cross-sectional and routine healthcare database-based studies in seven electronic databases. Studies were required to report on at least two measures of the incidence and/or prevalence of atopic eczema between 1990 and 2010 and needed to use comparable methods at all assessment points. We retrieved 2,464 citations, from which we included 69 reports. Assessing global trends was complicated by the use of a range of outcome measures across studies and possible changes in diagnostic criteria over time. Notwithstanding these difficulties, there was evidence suggesting that the prevalence of atopic eczema was increasing in Africa, eastern Asia, western Europe and parts of northern Europe (i.e. the UK). No clear trends were identified in other regions. There was inadequate study coverage worldwide, particularly for repeated measures of atopic eczema incidence. Further epidemiological work is needed to investigate trends in what is now one of the most common long-term disorders globally. A range of relevant measures of incidence and prevalence, careful use of definitions and description of diagnostic criteria, improved study design, more comprehensive reporting and appropriate interpretation of these data are all essential to ensure that this important field of epidemiological enquiry progresses in a scientifically robust manner.

Purpose In this era of molecular diagnostics, prediction of clear-cell renal cell cancer (ccRCC) survival requires optimization, as current prognostic markers fail to determine individual patient outcome. Epigenetic events are promising molecular markers. Promoter CpG island methylation of cysteine dioxygenase type 1 (CDO1), which was identified as prognostic marker for breast cancer, is studied as a potential marker for ccRCC survival. Experimental Design We collected primary tissues of 365 ccRCC cases identified within the prospective Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS). In this population-based series, CDO1 promoter methylation was observed in 124 of 324 (38.3%) patients with successful methylation-specific PCR analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Wilcoxon tests were used to evaluate 10-year ccRCC-specific survival. Cox regression analysis was used to obtain crude and multivariate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The relative prognostic value of multivariate models with and without CDO1 promoter methylation was compared using likelihood-ratio tests. Results Patients with CDO1 promoter methylation have a significantly poorer survival than those without (Wilcoxon P = 0.006). Differences in survival were independent of other prognostic factors, including age and sex (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.12–2.45) and TNM stage, tumor size, and Fuhrman grade (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.25–2.85). Multivariate models performed better with than without CDO1 promoter methylation status (likelihood-ratio P = 0.003). Survival curves were validated in an independent series of 280 ccRCC cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; Wilcoxon P< 0.001). Conclusions CDO1 promoter methylation may not substitute common prognostic makers to predict ccRCC survival, but offers additional, relevant prognostic information, indicating that it might be a novel molecular marker to determine ccRCC prognosis.

PurposeA considerable part of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions may never progress into invasive breast cancer. However, standard treatment consists of surgical excision. Trials aim to identify a subgroup of low-risk DCIS patients that can safely forgo surgical treatment based on histologic grade, which highlights the importance of accurate grading. Using real-life nationwide data, we aimed to create insight and awareness in grading variation of DCIS in daily clinical practice.MethodsAll synoptic pathology reports of pure DCIS resection specimens between 2013 and 2016 were retrieved from PALGA, the nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry. Absolute differences in proportions of grade I-III were visualized using funnel plots. Multivariable analysis was performed by logistic regression to correct for case-mix, providing odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for high-grade (III) versus low-grade (I–II) DCIS.Results4952 DCIS reports from 36 laboratories were included, of which 12.5% were reported as grade I (range 6.1–24.4%), 39.5% as grade II (18.2–57.6%), and 48.0% as grade III (30.2–72.7%). After correction for case-mix, 14 laboratories (38.9%) reported a significantly lower (n = 4) or higher (n = 10) proportion of high-grade DCIS than the reference laboratory. Adjusted ORs (95%CI) ranged from 0.52 (0.31–0.87) to 3.83 (1.42–10.39). Significant grading differences were also observed among pathologists within laboratories.ConclusionIn this cohort of 4901 patients, we observed substantial inter- and intra-laboratory variation in DCIS grading, not explained by differences in case-mix. Therefore, there is an urgent need for nationwide standardization of grading practices, especially since the future management of DCIS may alter significantly depending on histologic grade.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-018-05082-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim: Despite numerous published prognostic methylation markers for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), none of these have yet changed patient management. Our aim is to systematically review and evaluate the literature on prognostic DNA methylation markers for RCC. Materials & methods: We conducted an exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE up to April 2017 and identified 49 publications. Studies were reviewed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, assessed for their reporting quality using the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) criteria, and were graded to determine the level of evidence (LOE) for each biomarker. Results: We identified promoter methylation of BNC1, SCUBE3, GATA5, SFRP1, GREM1, RASSF1A, PCDH8, LAD1 and NEFH as promising prognostic markers. Extensive methodological heterogeneity across the included studies was observed, which hampers comparability and reproducibility of results, providing a possible explanation why these biomarkers do not reach the clinic. Conclusion: Potential prognostic methylation markers for RCC have been identified, but they require further validation in prospective studies to determine their true clinical value.