Prevalence estimates for primary brain tumors in the United States by behavior and major histology groups.

Prevalence rates are used to supplement descriptions of disease and are unavailable for all primary brain tumors in the United States. Data from two population-based tumor registries were obtained from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States and used to compute age-specific incidence rates (1985-1994) and survival curves for further use in a statistical model to estimate prevalence rates. Prevalence rates were then used to estimate the number of individuals living with a brain tumor diagnosis in the U.S. population for the year 2000. The overall incidence rate in these regions is 13.8 per 100,000 with 2-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates of 58%, 49%, and 38%, respectively. The prevalence rate for all primary brain tumors is 130.8 per 100,000 with approximately 350,000 individuals estimated to be living with this diagnosis in the United States in 2000. The prevalence rate for malignant tumors, 29.5 per 100,000, is similar to previous reports. The prevalence rate for benign tumors, 97.5 per 100,000, is new. Unlike incidence data, the proportion (and expected number) of existing benign tumors (75%, 267,000) is considerably greater than that for malignant tumors (23%, 81,000), reflecting the better prognosis of benign tumors diagnosed in individuals younger than 60 years old. These data underscore the impact of primary brain tumors in the U.S. health care system and emphasize the need for quality-of-life considerations, particularly for those long-term survivors of benign tumors.

The conditional probability of survival of patients with primary malignant brain tumors: surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) data.

BACKGROUND: Five-year survival estimates in standard cancer reports provide a general description of disease outcome that is useful for surveillance and comparison purposes. However, for cancer survivors these overall survival rates may be discouraging, and the relevant question regarding an individual is this: Once he or she has survived for a specified period of time, what is the probability of survival over the next period of time? METHODS: To address this, conditional survival rates by histology for malignant brain tumor survivors were estimated using the SEER public use data and the Portable Survival System, with 19,105 brain and other nervous system patients diagnosed between 1979 and 1993. Given that the survival curve declines more rapidly in the first 2 years than in subsequent years, conditional probabilities of surviving 5 years given survival to 2 years and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)were calculated. As age is a strong prognostic factor for these tumors, conditional probabilities were also estimated by categories of age. RESULTS: Estimated 2- and 5-year relative survival rates for patients with malignant brain and other CNS tumors were 36.2% and 27.6%; however, the conditional probability of surviving to 5 years, given survival to 2 years, reaches 76.2% (95% CI: 74.8-77.6). Conditional probabilities varied by histology and age at diagnosis. The conditional probability of surviving 5 years after surviving 2 years was 67.8% (95% CI: 62.6-73.1) for patients with anaplastic astrocytomas, 36.4% (95% CI: 31.9-41.6) for patients with glioblastomas, and 79.8% (95% CI:75.3-84.1) for patients with medulloblastomas. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional probabilities provide important and encouraging information for those who are brain tumor survivors. The utility of these estimates for other time intervals and other cancers or diseases should be considered.

Descriptive epidemiology of primary brain and CNS tumors: results from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, 1990-1994.

The Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) obtained 5 years of incidence data (1990-1994)--including reports on all primary brain and CNS tumors--from 11 collaborating state cancer registries. Data were available for 20,765 tumors located in the brain, meninges, and other CNS sites, including the pituitary and pineal glands. The average annual incidence was estimated at 11.5 cases per 100,000 person-years. The higher incidence of tumors in male patients (12.1 per 100,000 person-years) than in female patients (11.0 per 100,000 person-years) was statistically significant (P < 0.05); the higher incidence in whites (11.6 per 100,000 person-years) compared with blacks (7.8 per 100,000 person-years) was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The most frequently reported histologies were meningiomas (24.0%) and glioblastomas (22.6%). Higher rates for glioblastomas, anaplastic astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas, anaplastic oligodendrogliomas, ependymomas, mixed gliomas, astrocytomas not otherwise specified, medulloblastomas, lymphomas, and germ cell tumors in male than in female patients were statistically significant (P < 0.05), with relative risks (RR) ranging from 1.3 to 3.4. Meningiomas were the only tumors with a significant excess in females (RR = 0.5). We noted higher occurrence rates in whites than in blacks for the following histologies: diffuse astrocytomas, anaplastic astrocytomas, glioblastomas, oligodendrogliomas, ependymomas, mixed gliomas, astrocytomas NOS, medulloblastomas, nerve sheath tumors, hemangioblastomas, and germ cell tumors, with RRs ranging from 1.5 to 3.4. Racial differences in occurrence rates were not observed for predominately benign meningiomas or pituitary tumors. This study represents the largest compilation of data on primary brain and CNS tumors in the United States. Standard reporting definitions and practices must be universally adopted to improve the quality and use of cancer registry data.

Familial prostate cancer: a different disease?

PURPOSE: We analyzed the outcome after radical prostatectomy of patients with familial prostate cancer versus patients with sporadic prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 720 patients with prostate carcinoma who were treated with prostatectomy between 1987 and 1996. Patients were excluded from the study if they had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment, or had no available pretreatment prostatic specific antigen (PSA) level, no available biopsy Gleason score, incomplete pathological information or no available followup PSA levels. The analysis was performed on 529 cases. Patients were considered to have a positive family history for prostate cancer when the index patient confirmed the diagnosis of prostate cancer in a first degree relative (brother or father). The outcomes of interest were biochemical relapse-free survival, local failure and distant metastases. Proportional hazards were used to analyze the effect of family history and confounding variables (that is age, stage, biopsy Gleason score, initial PSA levels, surgical specimen Gleason score, extracapsular extension, lymph node metastasis, seminal vesicle invasion and surgical margin involvement) on treatment outcome. RESULTS: Median followup was 30 months. Of all cases 12% had a positive family history. Younger age was the only factor associated with positive family history, with 18% of patients younger than 65 years having a positive family history versus 6% of older patients (chi-square p <0.001). The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rate for the entire group was 64%. The 5-year biochemical relapse-free survival rates for patients with negative family history versus positive history were 66% and 46%, respectively (p = 0.001). A multivariate time-to-failure analysis using the proportional hazards model was performed based on family history, age (less than 65 versus 65 to 69 versus 70 or greater, initial PSA (10 or less versus greater than 10), biopsy Gleason score (6 or less versus 7 or greater), clinical T stage (T1-T2A versus T2B-C), prostatectomy specimen Gleason score (6 or less versus 7 or greater), extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle involvement, surgical margin involvement and lymph node involvement. After adjusting for the potential confounding factors, positive family history remained strongly associated with biochemical failure. The clinical failure rate for the entire group was 14%. The 5-year local failure rate was 7%, with positive surgical margins being the only independent predictor of local failure. The 5-year distant metastasis rate was 8%, with family history and initial PSA levels being independent predictors of distant relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with a familial prostate cancer have a higher likelihood of biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy than patients with sporadic cancer. This effect is independent of pretreatment or pathological factors. Our results suggest that the higher failure rates associated with familial prostate cancer are mainly secondary to higher distant relapse rates, and that familial prostate cancer may be more biologically aggressive than sporadic cancers.

Family history of prostate cancer in patients with localized prostate cancer: an independent predictor of treatment outcome.

PURPOSE: To determine if familial prostate cancer patients have a less favorable prognosis than patients with sporadic prostate cancer after treatment for localized disease with either radiotherapy (RT) or radical prostatectomy (RP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand thirty-eight patients treated with either RT (n = 583) or RP (n = 455) were included in this analysis. These patients were noted as having a positive family history if they confirmed the diagnosis of prostate cancer in a first-degree relative. The outcome of interest was biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS). We used proportional hazards to analyze the effect of the presence of family history and other potential confounding variables (ie, age, treatment modality, stage, biopsy Gleason sum [GS], and initial prostate-specific antigen [iPSA] levels) on treatment outcome. RESULTS: Eleven percent of all patients had a positive family history. The 5-year bRFS rates for patients with negative and positive family histories were 52% and 29%, respectively (P < .001). The potential confounders with bRFS rates were iPSA levels, biopsy GS, and clinical tumor stage; treatment modality and age did not appear to be associated with outcome. After adjusting for potential confounders, family history of prostate cancer remained strongly associated with biochemical failure. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to demonstrate that the presence of a family history of prostate cancer correlates with treatment outcome in a large unselected series of patients. Our findings suggest that familial prostate cancer may have a more aggressive course than nonfamilial prostate cancer, and that clinical and/or pathologic parameters may not adequately predict this course.