STRUCTURED ABSTRACTBackgroundIncidence of childhood cancer increased in most countries worldwide, but the reasons are unclear. This study investigates trends in childhood cancer incidence in Switzerland from 1985 to 2014.MethodsWe extracted data on all childhood cancer cases diagnosed at ages 0-14 years in Switzerland from the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry. We included ICCC-3 main groups I-XII and calculated age-standardised, cumulative, and age-specific incidence for different diagnostic groups. We analysed trends in annual age-standardised incidence using JoinPoint regression models.ResultsOver the study period from 1985-2014, 5104 of 5486 cancer diagnoses (93%) were microscopically verified. The proportion of children treated in paediatric cancer centres increased from 84% during 1985-1994 to 93% in 1995-2004 and 98% in 2005-2014 (p<0.001). Using the 2010 European standard population, age-standardised incidence was 143 in 1985-1994, 154 in 1995-2004, and 162 per million in 2005-2014. Over the period 1985-2014, incidence for all cancers increased by 0.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5-1.0) per year, 0.8% (95% CI 0.2%-1.4%) for leukaemias, 3.8% (95% CI 1.7%-6.0%) for epithelial neoplasms and melanomas, and 3.0% (95% CI 1.3%-4.6%) for CNS tumours for the period 1985-2002.ConclusionTrends in incidence were driven mostly by increases among leukaemias and CNS tumours. For CNS tumours, observed trends may be explained at least partially by diagnostic changes and improved registration. For leukaemias, rising incidence may be real and at least partly due to changes in risk factors.HighlightsIn Switzerland, incidence of childhood cancer increased by 18% from 1985-2014.Increase in incidence was mainly caused by brain tumours and leukaemias.Improved registration and diagnostics may have increased brain tumour incidence.Increasing trend for leukaemias may be real, but reasons remain elusive.

Parents take an important role in follow-up of young cancer survivors. We aimed to investigate (1) parents' preferences for organisation of follow-up (including content, specialists involved and models of care), and (2) parents' and children's characteristics predicting preference for generalist vs. specialist-led follow-up. We sent a questionnaire to parents of childhood cancer survivors aged 11-17 years. We assessed on a 4-point Likert scale (1-4), parents' preferences for organisation of long-term follow-up. Proposed models were: telephone/questionnaire, general practitioner (GP) (both categorised as generalist for regression analysis); and paediatric oncologist, medical oncologist or multidisciplinary team (MDT) (categorised as specialists). Of 284 contacted parents, 189 responded (67%). Parents welcomed if visits included checking for cancer recurrence (mean = 3.89), late effects screening (mean = 3.79), taking patients seriously (mean = 3.86) and competent staff (mean = 3.85). The preferred specialists were paediatric oncologists (mean = 3.73). Parents valued the paediatric oncologist model of care (mean = 3.49) and the MDT model (mean = 3.14) highest. Parents of children not attending clinic-based follow-up (OR = 2.97, p = .009) and those visiting a generalist (OR = 4.23, p = .007) favoured the generalist-led model. Many parents preferred a clinic-based model of follow-up by paediatric oncologists or a MDT. However, parents also valued the follow-up care model according to which their child is followed up.

Follow-up care is important for childhood cancer survivors to facilitate early detection and treatment of late effects. We aimed to describe preferences for different organisational aspects and models of follow-up care among Swiss childhood cancer survivors, and characteristics associated with preferences for different models. We contacted 720 survivors aged 18+ years, diagnosed with cancer after 1990 (age 0-16 years), registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry (SCCR), and Swiss resident, who previously participated in a baseline survey. They received questionnaires to assess attendance and preferences for follow-up (rated on 4-point scales, 0-3). Clinical information was available from the SCCR. Survivors (n = 314: response rate 43.6%; 47.8% still attended follow-up) rated clinical reasons for follow-up higher than supportive reasons (p < .001). They rated checking for cancer recurrence (mean = 2.78, SD = 0.53) and knowing about risks for my children most important (mean = 2.22, SD = 0.83). They preferred to attend a children's hospital (mean = 1.94, SD = 1.11), adult hospital (mean = 1.86, SD = 0.98) or general practitioner (mean = 1.86, SD = 1.01) rather than a central specialised late effects clinic (mean = 1.25, SD = 1.06, p < .001), and be seen by paediatric (mean = 2.24, SD = 0.72) or medical oncologist (mean = 2.17, SD = 0.69). Survivors preferred decentralised clinic-based follow-up, rather than one central specialised late effects clinic. Survivors' preferences should be considered to ensure future attendance.

Childhood cancer and its treatment may affect health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in childhood cancer survivors, but population-based studies in young survivors are scarce. We aimed to: (1) compare HRQoL between young survivors and population norms and (2) find factors that influence parent-reported HRQoL in survivors.

Purpose: Male infertility is a frequent late effect after procarbazine-containing chemotherapy regimens for treatment of pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL). The GPOH-HD 2002 trial aimed at preservation of fertility by substituting procarbazine by dacarbazine in male patients. Two years after end of treatment fertility surrogate parameters (FSH, Inhibin B) and semen samples were analyzed.

We aimed to (i) evaluate psychological distress in adolescent survivors of childhood cancer and compare them to siblings and a norm population; (ii) compare the severity of distress of distressed survivors and siblings with that of psychotherapy patients; and (iii) determine risk factors for psychological distress in survivors.

BACKGROUND:Life partnerships other than marriage are rarely studied in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). We aimed (1) to describe life partnership and marriage in CCS and compare them to life partnerships in siblings and the general population; and (2) to identify socio-demographic and cancer-related factors associated with life partnership and marriage. METHODS:As part of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (SCCSS), a questionnaire was sent to all CCS (aged 20-40 years) registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry (SCCR), aged <16 years at diagnosis, who had survived ≥ 5 years. The proportion with life partner or married was compared between CSS and siblings and participants in the Swiss Health Survey (SHS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with life partnership or marriage. RESULTS:We included 1,096 CCS of the SCCSS, 500 siblings and 5,593 participants of the SHS. Fewer CCS (47%) than siblings (61%, P < 0.001) had life partners, and fewer CCS were married (16%) than among the SHS population (26%, P > 0.001). Older (OR = 1.14, P < 0.001) and female CCS (OR = 1.85, <0.001) were more likely to have life partners. CCS who had undergone radiotherapy, bone marrow transplants (global P Treatment = 0.018) or who had a CNS diagnosis (global P Diagnosis < 0.001) were less likely to have life partners. CONCLUSION:CCS are less likely to have life partners than their peers. Most CCS with a life partner were not married. Future research should focus on the effect of these disparities on the quality of life of CCS.

We report on the outcome of children with advanced primary myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) transplanted from an HLA-matched sibling (MSD) or an unrelated donor (UD) following a preparative regimen with busulfan, cyclophosphamide and melphalan. Ninety-seven patients with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB, n =53), RAEB in transformation (RAEB-T, n =29) and myelodysplasia-related acute myeloid leukemia (MDR-AML, n =15) enrolled in the European Working Group of MDS in Childhood (EWOG-MDS) 98 study and given hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) were analyzed. Median age at HSCT was 11.1 years (range 1.4–19.0). Thirty-nine children were transplanted from an MSD, whereas 58 were given the allograft from a UD ( n =57) or alternative family donor ( n =1). Stem cell source was bone marrow ( n =69) or peripheral blood ( n =28). With a median follow-up of 3.9 years (range 0.1–10.9), the 5-year probability of overall survival is 63%, while the 5-year cumulative incidence of transplantation-related mortality (TRM) and relapse is 21% each. Age at HSCT greater than 12 years, interval between diagnosis and HSCT longer than 4 months, and occurrence of acute or extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease were associated with increased TRM. The risk of relapse increased with more advanced disease. This study indicates that HSCT following a myeloablative preparative regimen offers a high probability of survival for children with advanced MDS.