Marcela Guevara

Dr. Marcela Guevara

Navarra Public Health Institute
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

26Years (2001-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2018 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CAClaudia Allemani
Claudia Allemani
TMTomohiro Matsuda
Tomohiro Matsuda
VCVeronica Di Carlo
Veronica Di Carlo
RHRhea Harewood
Rhea Harewood
MMMelissa Matz
Melissa Matz
CLC Lewis
C Lewis
In 2015, the second cycle of the CONCORD programme established global surveillance of cancer survival as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems and to inform global policy on cancer control. CONCORD-3 updates the worldwide surveillance of cancer survival to 2014. CONCORD-3 includes individual records for 37·5 million patients diagnosed with cancer during the 15-year period 2000-14. Data were provided by 322 population-based cancer registries in 71 countries and territories, 47 of which provided data with 100% population coverage. The study includes 18 cancers or groups of cancers: oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, prostate, and melanoma of the skin in adults, and brain tumours, leukaemias, and lymphomas in both adults and children. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were rectified by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. For many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries. Survival trends are generally increasing, even for some of the more lethal cancers: in some countries, survival has increased by up to 5% for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and lung. For women diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for breast cancer is now 89·5% in Australia and 90·2% in the USA, but international differences remain very wide, with levels as low as 66·1% in India. For gastrointestinal cancers, the highest levels of 5-year survival are seen in southeast Asia: in South Korea for cancers of the stomach (68·9%), colon (71·8%), and rectum (71·1%); in Japan for oesophageal cancer (36·0%); and in Taiwan for liver cancer (27·9%). By contrast, in the same world region, survival is generally lower than elsewhere for melanoma of the skin (59·9% in South Korea, 52·1% in Taiwan, and 49·6% in China), and for both lymphoid malignancies (52·5%, 50·5%, and 38·3%) and myeloid malignancies (45·9%, 33·4%, and 24·8%). For children diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ranged from 49·8% in Ecuador to 95·2% in Finland. 5-year survival from brain tumours in children is higher than for adults but the global range is very wide (from 28·9% in Brazil to nearly 80% in Sweden and Denmark). The CONCORD programme enables timely comparisons of the overall effectiveness of health systems in providing care for 18 cancers that collectively represent 75% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide every year. It contributes to the evidence base for global policy on cancer control. Since 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has used findings from the CONCORD programme as the official benchmark of cancer survival, among their indicators of the quality of health care in 48 countries worldwide. Governments must recognise population-based cancer registries as key policy tools that can be used to evaluate both the impact of cancer prevention strategies and the effectiveness of health systems for all patients diagnosed with cancer. 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.

1 March 2015 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CAClaudia Allemani
Claudia Allemani
HWHannah K Weir
Hannah K Weir
HCHelena Carreira
Helena Carreira
RHRhea Harewood
Rhea Harewood
DSDevon Spika
Devon Spika
MCMichel P Coleman
Michel P Coleman
Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75,000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA).

1 January 2014 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Gemma GattaGemma Gatta
Gemma Gatta
LBLaura Botta
Laura Botta
SRSilvia Rossi
Silvia Rossi
TATiiu Aareleid
Tiiu Aareleid
MBMagdalena Bielska-Lasota
Magdalena Bielska-Lasota
RPRafael Peris-Bonet
Rafael Peris-Bonet

11 November 2010 in Blood
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MSMilena Sant
Milena Sant
CAClaudia Allemani
Claudia Allemani
CTCarmen Tereanu
Carmen Tereanu
RARoberta De Angelis
Roberta De Angelis
RCRiccardo Capocaccia
Riccardo Capocaccia
TGthe HAEMACARE Working Group
the HAEMACARE Working Group
Changing definitions and classifications of hematologic malignancies (HMs) complicate incidence comparisons. HAEMACARE classified HMs into groupings consistent with the latest World Health Organization classification and useful for epidemiologic and public health purposes. We present crude, age-specific and age-standardized incidence rates for European HMs according to these groupings, estimated from 66 371 lymphoid malignancies (LMs) and 21 796 myeloid malignancies (MMs) registered in 2000-2002 by 44 European cancer registries, grouped into 5 regions. Age-standardized incidence rates were 24.5 (per 100 000) for LMs and 7.55 for MMs. The commonest LMs were plasma cell neoplasms (4.62), small B-cell lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphatic leukemia (3.79), diffuse B-cell lymphoma (3.13), and Hodgkin lymphoma (2.41). The commonest MMs were acute myeloid leukemia (2.96), other myeloproliferative neoplasms (1.76), and myelodysplastic syndrome (1.24). Unknown morphology LMs were commonest in Northern Europe (7.53); unknown morphology MMs were commonest in Southern Europe (0.73). Overall incidence was lowest in Eastern Europe and lower in women than in men. For most LMs, incidence was highest in Southern Europe; for MMs incidence was highest in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Differences in diagnostic and registration criteria are an important cause of incidence variation; however, different distribution of HM risk factors also contributes. The quality of population-based HM data needs further improvement.

1 October 2014 in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
NFNita G. Forouhi
Nita G. Forouhi
Albert KoulmanAlbert Koulman
Albert Koulman
SSStephen J Sharp
Stephen J Sharp
FIFumiaki Imamura
Fumiaki Imamura
JKJanine Kröger
Janine Kröger
NWNicholas J Wareham
Nicholas J Wareham
Conflicting evidence exists regarding the association between saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and type 2 diabetes. In this longitudinal case-cohort study, we aimed to investigate the prospective associations between objectively measured individual plasma phospholipid SFAs and incident type 2 diabetes in EPIC-InterAct participants. The EPIC-InterAct case-cohort study includes 12,403 people with incident type 2 diabetes and a representative subcohort of 16,154 individuals who were selected from a cohort of 340.234 European participants with 3·99 million person-years of follow-up (the EPIC study). Incident type 2 diabetes was ascertained until Dec 31, 2007, by a review of several sources of evidence. Gas chromatography was used to measure the distribution of fatty acids in plasma phospholipids (mol%); samples from people with type 2 diabetes and subcohort participants were processed in a random order by centre, and laboratory staff were masked to participant characteristics. We estimated country-specific hazard ratios (HRs) for associations per SD of each SFA with incident type 2 diabetes using Prentice-weighted Cox regression, which is weighted for case-cohort sampling, and pooled our findings using random-effects meta-analysis. SFAs accounted for 46% of total plasma phospholipid fatty acids. In adjusted analyses, different individual SFAs were associated with incident type 2 diabetes in opposing directions. Even-chain SFAs that were measured (14:0 [myristic acid], 16:0 [palmitic acid], and 18:0 [stearic acid]) were positively associated with incident type 2 diabetes (HR [95% CI] per SD difference: myristic acid 1·15 [95% CI 1·09-1·22], palmitic acid 1·26 [1·15-1·37], and stearic acid 1·06 [1·00-1·13]). By contrast, measured odd-chain SFAs (15:0 [pentadecanoic acid] and 17:0 [heptadecanoic acid]) were inversely associated with incident type 2 diabetes (HR [95% CI] per 1 SD difference: 0·79 [0·73-0·85] for pentadecanoic acid and 0·67 [0·63-0·71] for heptadecanoic acid), as were measured longer-chain SFAs (20:0 [arachidic acid], 22:0 [behenic acid], 23:0 [tricosanoic acid], and 24:0 [lignoceric acid]), with HRs ranging from 0·72 to 0·81 (95% CIs ranging between 0·61 and 0·92). Our findings were robust to a range of sensitivity analyses. Different individual plasma phospholipid SFAs were associated with incident type 2 diabetes in opposite directions, which suggests that SFAs are not homogeneous in their effects. Our findings emphasise the importance of the recognition of subtypes of these fatty acids. An improved understanding of differences in sources of individual SFAs from dietary intake versus endogenous metabolism is needed. EU FP6 programme, Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Medical Research Council Human Nutrition Research, and Cambridge Lipidomics Biomarker Research Initiative.

1 August 2017 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Gemma GattaGemma Gatta
Gemma Gatta
RCRiccardo Capocaccia
Riccardo Capocaccia
LBLaura Botta
Laura Botta
SMSandra Mallone
Sandra Mallone
RARoberta De Angelis
Roberta De Angelis
EBEllen Benhamou
Ellen Benhamou