American Cancer Society; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Swiss Re; Swiss Cancer Research foundation; Swiss Cancer League; Institut National du Cancer; La Ligue Contre le Cancer; Rossy Family Foundation; US National Cancer Institute; and the Susan G Komen Foundation.

Incidence rates of melanoma are expected to continue rising. These trends are worrying in terms of disease burden, particularly in eastern European countries.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to evaluate the impact of socioeconomic disparities on prostate cancer presentation, treatment, and prognosis in Geneva, Switzerland, in which healthcare costs, medical coverage, and life expectancy are considered to be among the highest in the world. METHODS: This population-based study included all patients diagnosed with invasive prostate cancer among the resident population between 1995 and 2005. Patients were divided into 3 socioeconomic groups according to their last known occupation. Compared were patient and tumor characteristics and treatment patterns between socioeconomic groups. Cox multivariate regression analysis was used to assess and explain socioeconomic inequalities in prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Compared with patients of high socioeconomic class, those of low socioeconomic class were more often foreigners, were found less frequently to have screen-detected cancer, were found to have a more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis, and less often had information regarding disease characteristics and staging. These patients underwent prostatectomy less frequently and were more often managed with watchful waiting. The risk of dying as a result of prostate cancer (hazards ratio [HR]) in patients of a low versus high socioeconomic status was increased 2-fold (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.5-2.6). After adjustment for patient and tumor characteristics and treatment, the mortality risk was no longer found to be significantly increased (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, patients of low socioeconomic class were found to be at increased risk of dying as a result of their prostate cancer. This increased mortality is largely attributable to delayed diagnosis, poor diagnostic workup, and less invasive treatments in these individuals

BACKGROUND: The Women's Health Initiative randomized clinical trial reported that menopausal hormone therapy increases lung cancer mortality risk. If this is true, use of anti-estrogens should be associated with decreased lung cancer mortality risk. The authors compared lung cancer incidence and mortality among breast cancer patients with and without anti-estrogen therapy. METHODS: Our study included all 6655 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1980 and 2003 and registered at the Geneva Cancer Registry. Among these women, 46% (3066) received anti-estrogens. All women were followed for occurrence and death from lung cancer until December 2007. The authors compared incidence and mortality rates among patients with and without anti-estrogens with those expected in the general population by Standardized Incidence Ratios (SIRs) and Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMRs). RESULTS: After a total of 57,257 person-years, 40 women developed lung cancer. SIRs for lung cancer were not significantly decreased among breast cancer patients with and without anti-estrogens (0.63, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.33-1.10; and 1.12, 95% CI, 0.74-1.62, respectively) while SMR was decreased among women with anti-estrogens (0.13, 95% CI, 0.02-0.47, P<.001) but not for women without anti-estrogens (0.76, 95% CI, 0.43-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with expected outcomes in the general population, breast cancer patients receiving antiestrogen treatment for breast cancer had lower lung cancer mortality. This study further supports the hypothesis that estrogen therapy modifies lung cancer prognosis. Cancer 2011;117:1288-

BackgroundInformation on the underlying cause of death of cancer patients is of interest because it can be used to estimate net survival. The population-based Geneva Cancer Registry is unique because registrars are able to review the official cause of death. This study aims to describe the difference between the official and revised cause-of-death variables and the impact on cancer survival estimates.MethodsThe recording process for each cause of death variable is summarised. We describe the differences between the two cause-of-death variables for the 5,065 deceased patients out of the 10,534 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1970 and 2009. The Kappa statistic and logistic regression are applied to evaluate the degree of concordance. The impact of discordance on cause-specific survival is examined using the Kaplan Meier method.ResultsThe overall agreement between the two variables was high. However, several subgroups presented a lower concordance, suggesting differences in calendar time and less attention given to older patients and more advanced diseases. Similarly, the impact of discordance on cause-specific survival was small on overall survival but larger for several subgroups.ConclusionEstimation of cancer-specific survival could therefore be prone to bias when using the official cause of death. Breast cancer is not the more lethal cancer and our results can certainly not be generalised to more lethal tumours.