4.3 Article

The burden of rare cancer in Japan: Application of the RARECARE definition

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 490-495

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2014.07.014

Keywords

Rare cancers; Incidence; Cancer registries; Population based

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H24-008]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25460752] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Despite the fact that rare cancer is a new target of cancer control in Japan, the incidence of rare cancers is unknown and there is no generally accepted definition of rare cancers in this country. With the aim of calculating incidences of rare cancers in Japan, we therefore adopted a definition and classification of rare cancers that had been published in the European Union (EU) in 2011. Methods: Using incidence data between 1998 and 2007 submitted by 12 of population based cancer registries in Japan that met our quality criteria and drawing on the EU definition (incidence < 6 per 100,000 per year), we estimated the incidences of 845 combinations of tumor sites and histological groups and thus identified the cancers that are rare in Japan. Results: After identifying 193 combinations of tumor sites and histological groups that fit our criteria for rare cancers, we estimated their incidence to be about 75 per 100,000, which corresponds to about 94,800 new diagnoses in 2012 or approximately 15% of all cancer diagnoses. The categorization of rare and common cancers was almost the same in Japan as in EU. Conclusions: The present study provides an indication of the size of the rare cancer burden in Japan and epidemiological information to explore this. We are expecting further discussion based on our results with stakeholders in order to construct a Japanese definition of rare cancers. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available