SummaryBackgroundPrevious efforts to report estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in India and its different parts include the National Cancer Registry Programme Reports, Sample Registration System cause of death findings, Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Series, and GLOBOCAN. We present a comprehensive picture of the patterns and time trends of the burden of total cancer and specific cancer types in each state of India estimated as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2016 because such a systematic compilation is not readily available.MethodsWe used all accessible data from multiple sources, including 42 population-based cancer registries and the nationwide Sample Registration System of India, to estimate the incidence of 28 types of cancer in every state of India from 1990 to 2016 and the deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) caused by them, as part of GBD 2016. We present incidence, DALYs, and death rates for all cancers together, and the trends of all types of cancers, highlighting the heterogeneity in the burden of specific types of cancers across the states of India. We also present the contribution of major risk factors to cancer DALYs in India.Findings8·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 7·9–8·6) of the total deaths and 5·0% (4·6–5·5) of the total DALYs in India in 2016 were due to cancer, which was double the contribution of cancer in 1990. However, the age-standardised incidence rate of cancer did not change substantially during this period. The age-standardised cancer DALY rate had a 2·6 times variation across the states of India in 2016. The ten cancers responsible for the highest proportion of cancer DALYs in India in 2016 were stomach (9·0% of the total cancer DALYs), breast (8·2%), lung (7·5%), lip and oral cavity (7·2%), pharynx other than nasopharynx (6·8%), colon and rectum (5·8%), leukaemia (5·2%), cervical (5·2%), oesophageal (4·3%), and brain and nervous system (3·5%) cancer. Among these cancers, the age-standardised incidence rate of breast cancer increased significantly by 40·7% (95% UI 7·0–85·6) from 1990 to 2016, whereas it decreased for stomach (39·7%; 34·3–44·0), lip and oral cavity (6·4%; 0·4–18·6), cervical (39·7%; 26·5–57·3), and oesophageal cancer (31·2%; 27·9–34·9), and leukaemia (16·1%; 4·3–24·2). We found substantial inter-state heterogeneity in the age-standardised incidence rate of the different types of cancers in 2016, with a 3·3 times to 11·6 times variation for the four most frequent cancers (lip and oral, breast, lung, and stomach). Tobacco use was the leading risk factor for cancers in India to which the highest proportion (10·9%) of cancer DALYs could be attributed in 2016.InterpretationThe substantial heterogeneity in the state-level incidence rate and health loss trends of the different types of cancer in India over this 26-year period should be taken into account to strengthen infrastructure and human resources for cancer prevention and control at both the national and state levels. These efforts should focu...
SummaryBackgroundAn increase in worldwide HPV vaccination could be facilitated if fewer than three doses of vaccine are as effective as three doses. We originally aimed to compare the immunogenicity and frequency of persistent infection and cervical precancerous lesions caused by vaccine-targeted HPV after vaccination with two doses of quadrivalent vaccine on days 1 and 180 or later, with three doses on days 1, 60, and 180 or later, in a cluster-randomised trial. Suspension of the recruitment and vaccination due to events unrelated to our study meant that some enrolled girls could not be vaccinated and some vaccinated girls received fewer than the planned number of vaccinations by default. As a result, we re-analysed our data as an observational cohort study.MethodsOur study was designed to be done in nine locations (188 clusters) in India. Participants were unmarried girls aged 10–18 years vaccinated in four cohorts: girls who received three doses of vaccine on days 1, 60, and 180 or later, two doses on days 1 and 180 or later, two doses on days 1 and 60 by default, and one dose by default. The primary outcomes were immunogenicity in terms of L1 genotype-specific binding antibody titres, neutralising antibody titres, and antibody avidity after vaccination for the vaccine-targeted HPV types 16, 18, 6, and 11 and incident and persistent infections with these HPVs. Analysis was per actual number of vaccine doses received. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN98283094; and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00923702.FindingsVaccination of eligible girls was initiated on Sept 1, 2009, and continued until April 8, 2010. Of 21 258 eligible girls identified at 188 clusters, 17 729 girls were recruited from 178 clusters before suspension. 4348 (25%) girls received three doses, 4979 (28%) received two doses on days 1 and 180 or later, 3452 (19%) received two doses at days 1 and 60, and 4950 (28%) received one dose. Immune response in the two-dose HPV vaccine group was non-inferior to the three-dose group (median fluorescence intensity ratio for HPV 16 1·12 [95% CI 1·02–1·23] and for HPV 18 1·04 [0·92–1·19]) at 7 months, but was inferior in the two-dose default (0·33 [0·29–0·38] for HPV 16 and 0·51 [0·43–0·59] for HPV 18) and one-dose default (0·09 [0·08–0·11] for HPV 16 and 0·12 [0·10–0·14] for HPV 18) groups at 18 months. The geometric mean avidity indices after fewer than three doses by design or default were non-inferior to those after three doses of vaccine. Fewer than three doses by design and default induced detectable concentrations of neutralising antibodies to all four vaccine-targeted HPV types, but at much lower concentration after one dose. Cervical samples from 2649 participants were tested and the frequency of incident HPV 16, 18, 6, and 11 infections was similar irrespective of the number of vaccine doses received. The testing of at least two samples from 838 participants showed that there was no persistent HPV 16 or 18 infections in any study group at a median follow-up of 4·7 years (IQR 4·2–...
Background A randomised trial designed to compare three and two doses of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in adolescent girls in India was converted to a cohort study after suspension of HPV vaccination in trials by the Indian Government. In this Article, the revised aim of the cohort study was to compare vaccine efficacy of single dose to that of three and two doses in protecting against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection at 10 years post vaccination. MethodsIn the randomised trial, unmarried girls aged 10-18 years were recruited from nine centres across India and randomly assigned to either two doses or three doses of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil [Merck Sharp & Dohme, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA]; 0•5 mL administered intramuscularly). After suspension of recruitment and vaccination, the study became a longitudinal, prospective cohort study by default, and participants were allocated to four cohorts on the basis of the number vaccine doses received per protocol: the two-dose cohort (received vaccine on days 1 and 180 or later), three-dose cohort (days 1, 60, and 180 or later), two-dose default cohort (days 1 and 60 or later), and the single-dose default cohort. Participants were followed up yearly. Cervical specimens were collected from participants 18 months after marriage or 6 months after first childbirth, whichever was earlier, to assess incident and persistent HPV infections. Married participants were screened for cervical cancer as they reached 25 years of age. Unvaccinated women age-matched to the married vaccinated participants were recruited to serve as controls. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infections (the primary endpoint) was analysed for single-dose recipients and compared with that in two-dose and three-dose recipients after adjusting for imbalance in the distribution of potential confounders between the unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN98283094, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00923702. Findings Vaccinated participants were recruited between Sept 1, 2009, and April 8, 2010 (date of vaccination suspension), and followed up over a median duration of 9•0 years (IQR 8•2-9•6). 4348 participants had three doses, 4980 had two doses (0 and 6 months), and 4949 had a single dose. Vaccine efficacy against persistent HPV 16 and 18 infection among participants evaluable for the endpoint was 95•4% (95% CI 85•0-99•9) in the single-dose default cohort (2135 women assessed), 93•1% (77•3-99•8) in the two-dose cohort (1452 women assessed), and 93•3% (77•5-99•7) in three-dose recipients (1460 women assessed).Interpretation A single dose of HPV vaccine provides similar protection against persistent infection from HPV 16 and 18, the genotypes responsible for nearly 70% of cervical cancers, to that provided by two or three doses.Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
SummaryBackgroundGlobal inequalities in access to health care are reflected in differences in cancer survival. The CONCORD programme was designed to assess worldwide differences and trends in population-based cancer survival. In this population-based study, we aimed to estimate survival inequalities globally for several subtypes of childhood leukaemia.MethodsCancer registries participating in CONCORD were asked to submit tumour registrations for all children aged 0–14 years who were diagnosed with leukaemia between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2009, and followed up until Dec 31, 2009. Haematological malignancies were defined by morphology codes in the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third revision. We excluded data from registries from which the data were judged to be less reliable, or included only lymphomas, and data from countries in which data for fewer than ten children were available for analysis. We also excluded records because of a missing date of birth, diagnosis, or last known vital status. We estimated 5-year net survival (ie, the probability of surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis, after controlling for deaths from other causes [background mortality]) for children by calendar period of diagnosis (1995–99, 2000–04, and 2005–09), sex, and age at diagnosis (<1, 1–4, 5–9, and 10–14 years, inclusive) using appropriate life tables. We estimated age-standardised net survival for international comparison of survival trends for precursor-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML).FindingsWe analysed data from 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries. During 1995–99, 5-year age-standardised net survival for all lymphoid leukaemias combined ranged from 10·6% (95% CI 3·1–18·2) in the Chinese registries to 86·8% (81·6–92·0) in Austria. International differences in 5-year survival for childhood leukaemia were still large as recently as 2005–09, when age-standardised survival for lymphoid leukaemias ranged from 52·4% (95% CI 42·8–61·9) in Cali, Colombia, to 91·6% (89·5–93·6) in the German registries, and for AML ranged from 33·3% (18·9–47·7) in Bulgaria to 78·2% (72·0–84·3) in German registries. Survival from precursor-cell ALL was very close to that of all lymphoid leukaemias combined, with similar variation. In most countries, survival from AML improved more than survival from ALL between 2000–04 and 2005–09. Survival for each type of leukaemia varied markedly with age: survival was highest for children aged 1–4 and 5–9 years, and lowest for infants (younger than 1 year). There was no systematic difference in survival between boys and girls.InterpretationGlobal inequalities in survival from childhood leukaemia have narrowed with time but remain very wide for both ALL and AML. These results provide useful information for health policy makers on the effectiveness of health-care systems and for cancer policy makers to reduce inequalities in childhood cancer survival.FundingCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Focus Northern Ireland, Cancer In...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.