OBJECTIVE: To assess the global distribution of breast cancer stage by country, age group, calendar period, and socioeconomic status using population-based data.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Web of Science databases and registry websites and gray literature was conducted for articles or reports published between January 1, 2000, and June 20, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION: Reports on stage at diagnosis for individuals with primary breast cancer (C50) from a population-based cancer registry were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study characteristics and results of eligible studies were independently extracted by 2 pairs of reviewers (J.D.B.F., A.D.A., A.M., R.S., and F.G.). Stage-specific proportions were extracted and cancer registry data quality and risk of bias were assessed. National pooled estimates were calculated for subnational or annual data sets using a hierarchical rule of the most relevant and high-quality data to avoid duplicates.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of women with breast cancer by (TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors or the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program [SEER]) stage group.
RESULTS: Data were available for 2.4 million women with breast cancer from 81 countries. Globally, the proportion of cases with distant metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis was high in sub-Saharan Africa, ranging from 5.6% to 30.6% and low in North America ranging from 0.0% to 6.0%. The proportion of patients diagnosed with distant metastatic disease decreased over the past 2 decades from around 3.8% to 35.8% (early 2000s) to 3.2% to 11.6% (2015 onwards), yet stabilization or slight increases were also observed. Older age and lower socioeconomic status had the largest proportion of cases diagnosed with distant metastatic stage ranging from 2.0% to 15.7% among the younger to 4.1% to 33.9% among the oldest age group, and from 1.7% to 8.3% in the least disadvantaged groups to 2.8% to 11.4% in the most disadvantaged groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Effective policy and interventions have resulted in decreased proportions of women diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer at diagnosis in high-income countries, yet inequality persists, which needs to be addressed through increased awareness of breast cancer symptoms and early detection. Improving global coverage and quality of population-based cancer registries, including the collection of standardized stage data, is key to monitoring progress.
METHODS: A total of 4,666 controls were pooled from several studies of cancer and HPV seropositivity, all tested within the same laboratory. HPV16 E6 seropositive controls were classified as having (i) moderate [mean fluorescent intensity (MFI) ≥ 484 and <1,000] or (ii) high seroreactivity (MFI ≥ 1,000). Associations of moderate and high HPV16 E6 seroreactivity with (i) demographic risk factors; and seropositivity for (ii) other HPV16 proteins (E1, E2, E4, E7, and L1), and (iii) E6 proteins from non-HPV16 types (HPV6, 11, 18, 31, 33, 45, and 52) were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-two (0.7%) HPV16 E6 seropositive controls were identified; 17 (0.4%) with moderate and 15 (0.3%) with high seroreactivity. High HPV16 E6 seroreactivity was associated with former smoking [odds ratio (OR), 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-51.8], and seropositivity against HPV16 L1 (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.3-15.4); E2 (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 1.4-29.1); multiple HPV16 proteins (OR, 25.3; 95% CI, 2.6-119.6 for three HPV16 proteins beside E6) and HPV33 E6 (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 1.9-81.8). No associations were observed with moderate HPV16 E6 seroreactivity.
CONCLUSIONS: High HPV16 E6 seroreactivity is rare among individuals without diagnosed cancer and was not explained by demographic factors.
IMPACT: Some HPV16 E6 seropositive individuals without diagnosed HPV-driven cancer, especially those with seropositivity against other HPV16 proteins, may harbor a biologically relevant HPV16 infection.
METHODS: Using HPV serology as a marker of HPV-related cancer, we examined the interaction between smoking and HPV16 in 459 oropharyngeal (and 1445 oral cavity and laryngeal) cancer patients and 3024 control participants from two large European multi-centre studies. Odds ratios and credible intervals [CrI], adjusted for potential confounders, were estimated using Bayesian logistic regression.
RESULTS: Both smoking [odds ratio (OR [CrI]: 6.82 [4.52, 10.29]) and HPV seropositivity (OR [CrI]: 235.69 [99.95, 555.74]) were independently associated with oropharyngeal cancer. The joint association of smoking and HPV seropositivity was consistent with that expected on the additive scale (synergy index [CrI]: 1.32 [0.51, 3.45]), suggesting they act as independent risk factors for oropharyngeal cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Smoking was consistently associated with increase in oropharyngeal cancer risk in models stratified by HPV16 seropositivity. In addition, we report that the prevalence of oropharyngeal cancer increases with smoking for both HPV16-positive and HPV16-negative persons. The impact of smoking on HPV16-positive oropharyngeal cancer highlights the continued need for smoking cessation programmes for primary prevention of head and neck cancer.