Publications by authors named "Rustam Tursun-Zade"

4 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Comparability and validity of cancer registry data in the northwest of Russia.

Acta Oncol 2021 Oct 23;60(10):1264-1271. Epub 2021 Aug 23.

Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

Background: Despite the elaborate history of statistical reporting in the USSR, Russia established modern population-based cancer registries (PBCR) only in the 1990s. The quality of PBCRs data has not been thoroughly analyzed. This study aims at assessing the comparability and validity of cancer statistics in regions of the Northwestern Federal District (NWFD) of Russia.

Material And Methods: Data from ten Russian regional PBCRs covering ∼13 million (∼5 million in St. Petersburg) were processed in line with IARC/IACR and ENCR recommendations. We extracted and analyzed all registered cases but focused on cases diagnosed between 2008 and 2017. For comparability and validity assessment, we applied established qualitative and quantitative methods.

Results: Data collection in NWFD is in line with international standards. Distributions of diagnosis dates revealed higher variation in several regions, but overall, distributions are relatively uniform. The proportion of multiple primaries between 2008 and 2017 ranged from 6.7% in Vologda Oblast to 12.4% in Saint-Petersburg. We observed substantial regional heterogeneity for most indicators of validity. In 2013-2017, proportions of morphologically verified cases ranged between 61.7 and 89%. Death certificates only (DCO) cases proportion was in the range of 1-14% for all regions, except for Saint-Petersburg (up to 23%). The proportion of cases with a primary site unknown was between 1 and 3%. Certain cancer types (e.g., pancreas, liver, hematological malignancies, and CNS tumors) and cancers in older age groups showed lower validity.

Conclusion: While the overall level of comparability and validity of PBCRs data of four out of ten regions of NWFD of Russia meets the international standards, differences between the regions are substantial. The local instructions for cancer registration need to be updated and implemented. The data validity assessment also reflects pitfalls in the quality of diagnosis of certain cancer types and patient groups.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2021.1967443DOI Listing
October 2021

History and current status of cancer registration in Russia.

Cancer Epidemiol 2021 08 2;73:101963. Epub 2021 Jun 2.

Cancer Surveillance Branch, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.

Background: Russia, then part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the USSR), introduced compulsory cancer registration in 1953, but a clear overall contemporary description of the cancer surveillance system in Russia is not available.

Methods: We summarized historical landmarks and the development of the standards of classification and coding of neoplasms in Russia and described current population-based cancer registries' (PBCR) procedures and practices.

Results: Cancer registration is organized according to the administrative division of the Russian Federation. More than 600,000 cases are registered annually. All medical facilities, without exception, are required to notify the PBCR about newly diagnosed cases, and each regional PBCR is responsible for registering all cancers diagnosed in citizens residing in the region. The data collection can be described as passive and exhaustive. Hematological malignancies, brain, and CNS tumors are often not referred to cancer hospitals in some regions, explaining the problems in registering these cancers.

Conclusion: Russia's cancer registration system is population-based, and practices seem to be generally internationally comparable. However, coding practices and national guidelines are still outdated and not up to the most recent international recommendations. Further analyses are needed to assess the comparability, validity, completeness, and timeliness of Russia's PBCRs data.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2021.101963DOI Listing
August 2021

Evaluation of the performance of SARS--CoV--2 antibody assays for a longitudinal population-based study of COVID--19 spread in St. Petersburg, Russia.

J Med Virol 2021 Oct 12;93(10):5846-5852. Epub 2021 Jun 12.

Department of Etiology and Epidemiology, Smorodintsev Research Institute of Influenza, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

Geographical variation in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS--CoV--2) spread requires seroprevalence studies based on local tests, but robust validation is needed. We summarize an evaluation of antibody tests used in a serological study of SARS--CoV--2 in Saint Petersburg, Russia. We validated three different antibody assays: chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) Abbott Architect SARS--CoV--2 immunoglobulin G (IgG), enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) CoronaPass total antibodies test, and ELISA SARS--CoV--2--IgG--EIA--BEST. Clinical sensitivity was estimated with the SARS--CoV--2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test as the gold standard using manufacturer recommended cutoff. Specificity was estimated using pre-pandemic sera samples. The median time between positive PCR test results and antibody tests was 21 weeks. Measures of concordance were calculated against the microneutralization test (MNA).Sensitivity was equal to 91.1% (95% confidence intervbal [CI]: 78.8-97.5), 90% (95% CI: 76.4-96.4), and 63.1% (95% CI [50.2-74.7]) for ELISA Coronapass, ELISA Vector-Best, and CMIA Abbott, respectively. Specificity was equal to 100% for all the tests. Comparison of receiver operating characteristics has shown lower AUC for CMIA Abbott. The cut-off SC/O ratio of 0.28 for CMIA Abbott resulted in a sensitivity of 80% at the same level of specificity. Less than 33% of the participants with positive antibody test results had neutralizing antibodies in titers 1:80 and above. Antibody assays results and MNA correlated moderately. This study encourages the use of local antibody tests and sets the reference for seroprevalence correction. Available tests' sensitivity allows detecting antibodies within the majority of PCR- positive individuals. The Abbott assay sensitivity can be improved by incorporating a new cut-off. Manufacturers' test characteristics may introduce bias into the study results.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27126DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8242745PMC
October 2021

Patterns in the relationship between life expectancy and gross domestic product in Russia in 2005-15: a cross-sectional analysis.

Lancet Public Health 2019 04;4(4):e181-e188

Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Department of Community Medicine, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Background: Since 2005, Russia has made substantial progress, experiencing an almost doubling of per-capita gross domestic product by purchasing power parity (GDP [PPP]) to US$24 800 and witnessing a 6-year increase in life expectancy, reaching 71·4 years by 2015. Even greater gains in GDP (PPP) were seen for Moscow, the Russian capital, reaching $43 000 in 2015 and with a life expectancy of 75·5 years. We aimed to investigate whether mortality levels now seen in Russia are consistent with what would be expected given this new level of per-capita wealth.

Methods: We used per-capita GDP (PPP) and life expectancy from 61 countries in 2014-15, plus those of Russia as a whole and its capital Moscow, to construct a Preston curve expressing the relationship between mortality and national wealth and to examine the positions of Russia and other populations relative to this curve. We adjusted life expectancy values for Moscow for underestimation of mortality at older ages. For comparison, we constructed another Preston curve based on the same set of countries for the year 2005. We used the stepwise replacement algorithm to decompose mortality differences between Russia or Moscow and comparator countries with similar incomes into age and cause-of-death components.

Findings: Life expectancy in 2015 for both Russia and Moscow lay below the Preston-curve-based expectations by 6·5 years and 4·9 years, respectively. In 2015, Russia had a lower per-capita income than 36 of the comparator countries but lower life expectancy than 60 comparator countries. However, the gaps between the observed and the Preston-expected life expectancy values for Russia have diminished by about 25% since 2005, when the life expectancy gap was 8·9 years for Russia and 6·6 years for Moscow. When compared with countries with similar level of income, the largest part of the life expectancy deficit was produced by working-age mortality from external causes for Russia and cardiovascular disease at older ages for Moscow.

Interpretation: Given the economic wealth of Russia, its life expectancy could be substantially higher. Sustaining the progress seen over the past decade depends on the ability of the Russian Government and society to devote adequate resources to people's health.

Funding: This work was partly funded through the International Project on Cardiovascular Disease in Russia supported by a Wellcome Trust Strategic Award (100217) and was supported by the Russian Academic Excellence Project 5-100.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30036-2DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6506569PMC
April 2019
-->