Differences in the incidence and mortality of digestive cancer between Global Cancer Observatory 2020 and Global Burden of Disease 2019

Abstract

The burden of digestive cancers is increasing worldwide. The Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) 2020 and the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 are two primary cancer databases, which have a significant impact on policy formulation and resource allocation. We aim to compare the incidence and mortality of digestive cancers between them. Digestive cancer (esophageal, stomach, colorectal, liver, gallbladder and pancreatic cancer) incidence was obtained from the Cancer Today and GBD 2019 result tool. The top five countries with the most or minor difference between GLOBOCAN 2020 and GBD 2019 in age‐standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) of digestive cancers were identified. A systematic search on the incidence of specific digestive cancer in selected countries from PubMed and Embase was conducted, and 20 of 281 publications were included. The most significant differences in digestive cancers incidence were commonly found in Asian countries (70%), particularly Indonesia, Vietnam and Myanmar, located in Southeast Asia. The ASIRs for most digestive cancers, except liver cancer, in GLOBOCAN 2020 were higher than those in GBD 2019. Gallbladder cancer had the highest average ratio, followed by liver cancer. The most commonly used standard population was Segi's standard population, followed by the World Health Organization standard population. The data sources nor the processing methods of GLOBOCAN 2020 and GBD 2019 were not similar. Low‐ and middle‐income countries without population‐based cancer registries were more likely to have selection bias in data collection and amplify regional variations of etiological factors. Better judgments on the quality of cancer data can be made.

Gallbladder Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rate Trends in China: A National Population-based Cancer Registry

“…The differences in GBC incidence and mortality rates between the GLOBOCAN 2020 and GBD 2019 databases may be attributed to differences in GBC International Classi cation of Diseases coding, the quality of cancer registration and healthcare management systems, one-year time lag between the two databases, and methodological differences. In our study, the GBC incidence and mortality data were based on the more accurate national cancer registries [39].…”

Socio‐economic association of alcohol use disorder and cardiovascular and alcohol‐associated liver disease from 2010 to 2019

“…11,38 This is particularly true in lower developmental index countries, such as low and low-to-middle SDI countries. 39 Second, the assessment of the burden of ALD and cardiovascular complications from alcohol use may be influenced by the presence of metabolic risk factors, potentially confounding the results. 36 Third, the GBD 2019 primarily quantifies the burden of liver and cardiovascular disease through liver cancer, ALD, ACM, and a few cardiac complications.…”

Precursor Lesions, Overdiagnosis, and Oral Cancer: A Critical Review

“…In contrast, GLOBOCAN and related publications [13] identify lip and oral cavity with ICD-10 codes C00 to C06 (thus excluding neoplasms of major salivary glands) and provide separate data for oropharynx (C09 and C10), making it easier to assess publicly available data related to oral and oropharyngeal cancers (Table 1). This, coupled with the differences in population coverage-and hence the representativeness and quality of the samples on which the estimates are based-explains the significant discrepancy observed between GLOBOCAN and GBD data [16,17]. For instance, in the United States, estimates of age-standardized incident cases of "lip and oral cavity" cancer vary between 6, 4.2, and 5.82 per 100,000, depending on the reporting source, either SEER, IARC (GLOBOCAN 2020), or IHME (GBD 2019), respectively.…”