The assessment of cancer survival at the population level is essential for monitoring progress in cancer control. We aimed to assess cancer survival and its trends in adults in Spain. Individual records of 601,250 adults with primary cancer diagnosed during 2002–2013 and followed up to 2015 were included from 13 population-based cancer registries. We estimated net survival up to five years after diagnosis and analyzed absolute changes between 2002–2007 and 2008–2013. Estimates were age-standardized. Analyses were performed for 29 cancer groups, by age and sex. Overall, age-standardized five-year net survival was higher in women (61.7%, 95% CI 61.4–62.1%) than in men (55.3%, 95% CI 55.0–55.6%), and ranged by cancer from 7.2% (pancreas) to 89.6% (prostate) in men, and from 10.0% (pancreas) to 93.1% (thyroid) in women in the last period. Survival declined with age, showing different patterns by cancer. Between both periods, age-standardized five-year net survival increased overall by 3.3% (95% CI 3.0–3.7%) in men and 2.5% (95% CI 2.0–3.0%) in women, and for most cancer groups. Improvements were greater in patients younger than 75 years than in older patients. Chronic myeloid leukemia and myeloma showed the largest increases. Among the most common malignancies, the greatest absolute increases in survival were observed for colon (5.0%, 95% CI 4.0–6.0%) and rectal cancers (4.5%, 95% CI 3.2–5.9%). Survival improved even for some cancers with poor prognosis (pancreas, esophagus, lung, liver, and brain cancer). Further investigation of possible sociodemographic inequalities is warranted. This study contributes to the evaluation of cancer control and health services’ effectiveness.

Background: Although prostate cancer has recently registered increasing incidence and decreasing mortality in Spain, no analysis has yet been made of these two indicators to ascertain the magnitude of and reasons for these trends. Materials and methods: The time trend in invasive prostate cancer incidence from 1975 to 2004 was studied by combining data from 13 Spanish population-based cancer registries. Change-point Poisson regression models were fitted for all men and for two age groups (45–64 and 65+ years). Age–period–cohort models were used to study cohort and period effects. In addition, we studied the time trend in prostate cancer mortality in Spain for the period 1980–2007. Results: Incidence increased annually by 1.3% from 1975 to 1990 and by 7.3% thereafter. Until 1990, the percentage increase was low and indeed similar for both age groups. While the subsequent increase in the two age groups was greater, this was particularly marked among the youngest men, with a decrease being observed in age groups >85 years in the last quinquennium. Mortality increased by an annual figure of 0.7% until 1998, after which it decreased by 3.6% per annum until 2007. Conclusions: Despite the dramatic rise in incidence from 1990 onwards, mainly due to opportunistic screening, prostate cancer mortality was only observed to decline slowly from 1998. If prostate-specific antigen screening remains at a similar level in Spain, overdiagnosis may well become an important chronic side-effect and health problem.

Background: Electronic health records are becoming an increasingly valuable resource for epidemiology but their data quality needs to be quantified. We aimed to validate twenty-five types of incident cancer cases in the Information System for Research in Primary Care (SIDIAP) in Catalonia with the population-based cancer registries of Girona and Tarragona as the gold-standard. Methods: We calculated the sensitivity, positive predictive values (PPV), and the time-difference between the date of diagnosis entered into the SIDIAP and into the registries. We added hospital discharge cancer diagnoses to the SIDIAP to assess sensitivity changes. Results: We identified 27,046 incident cancer diagnoses in the SIDIAP from 2009–2015 among the 949,841 residents of Girona and Tarragona. The cancer types with the highest sensitivity were breast (89%, 95% CI: 88–90%), colorectal (81%, 95% CI: 80–82%), and prostate (81%, 95% CI: 80–83%). Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers had the highest PPV (76%, 95% CI: 74%-78%) followed by stomach (72%, 95% CI: 68–75%) and pancreas (71%, 95% CI: 67–75%). Most cancer diagnoses were reported with less than three months of difference between the SIDIAP and the registries. More cases were registered first in the registries than in the SIDIAP. By adding cancer diagnoses based on hospital discharge data, sensitivity increased for all cancers, especially for gallbladder and biliary tract for which the sensitivity increased by 21%. Conclusion: The SIDIAP includes 76% of the cancer diagnoses in the cancer registries but includes a considerable number of cases that are not in the registries. The SIDIAP reports most of the cancer diagnoses within a three-month period difference from the date of diagnosis in the cancer registries. Our results support the use of the SIDIAP cancer diagnoses for epidemiological research when cancer is the outcome of interest. We recommend adding hospital discharge data to the SIDIAP to increase data quality, particularly for less frequent cancer types.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are sarcomas of the digestive tract characterized by mutations mainly located in the c-KIT or in the platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR)-alpha genes. Mutations in the BRAF gene have also been described. Our purpose is to define the distribution of c-KIT, PDGFR and BRAF mutations in a population-based cohort of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients and correlate them with anatomical site, risk classification and survival. In addition, as most of the GIST patients have a long survival, second cancers are frequently diagnosed in them. We performed a second primary cancer risk assessment. Our analysis was based on data from Tarragona and Girona Cancer Registries. We identified all GIST diagnosed from 1996 to 2006 and performed a mutational analysis of those in which paraffin-embedded tissue was obtained. Observed (OS) and relative survival (RS) were calculated according to risk classifications and mutational status. Multivariate analysis of variables for observed survival and was also done. A total of 132 GIST cases were found and we analyzed mutations in 108 cases. We obtained 53.7% of mutations in exon 11 and 7.4% in exon 9 of c-KIT gene; 12% in exon 18 and 1.9% in exon 12 of PDGFR gene and 25% of cases were wild type GIST. Patients with mutations in exon 11 of the c-KIT gene had a 5-year OS and RS of 59.6% and 66.3%, respectively. Patients with mutations in exon 18 of the PDGFR gene had a 5-year OS and RS of 84.6% and 89.7%. In multivariate analysis, only age and risk group achieved statistical significance for observed survival. GIST patients had an increased risk of second cancer with a hazard ratio of 2.47. This population-based study shows a spectrum of mutations in the c-KIT and PDGFR genes in GIST patients similar to that previously published. The OS and RS of GIST with the exon 18 PDGFR gene mutation could indicate that this subgroup of patients may be less aggressive and have a good prognosis, although less sensitive to treatment at recurrence. In our study, GIST patients have an increased risk of developing a second neoplasm.