Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 377–390 | Cite as

The effect of multiple primary rules on cancer incidence rates and trends

  • Hannah K. WeirEmail author
  • Christopher J. Johnson
  • Kevin C. Ward
  • Michel P. Coleman
Original paper



An examination of multiple primary cancers can provide insight into the etiologic role of genes, the environment, and prior cancer treatment on a cancer patient’s risk of developing a subsequent cancer. Different rules for registering multiple primary cancers (MP) are used by cancer registries throughout the world making data comparisons difficult.


We evaluated the effect of SEER and IARC/IACR rules on cancer incidence rates and trends using data from the SEER Program. We estimated age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and trends (1975–2011) for the top 26 cancer categories using joinpoint regression analysis.


ASIRs were higher using SEER compared to IARC/IACR rules for all cancers combined (3 %) and, in rank order, melanoma (9 %), female breast (7 %), urinary bladder (6 %), colon (4 %), kidney and renal pelvis (4 %), oral cavity and pharynx (3 %), lung and bronchus (2 %), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (2 %). ASIR differences were largest for patients aged 65+ years. Trends were similar using both MP rules with the exception of cancers of the urinary bladder, and kidney and renal pelvis.


The choice of multiple primary coding rules effects incidence rates and trends. Compared to SEER MP coding rules, IARC/IACR rules are less complex, have not changed over time, and report fewer multiple primary cancers, particularly cancers that occur in paired organs, at the same anatomic site and with the same or related histologic type. Cancer registries collecting incidence data using SEER rules may want to consider including incidence rates and trends using IARC/IACR rules to facilitate international data comparisons.


Incidence rates Trends Multiple primary cancers Population-based cancer registry SEER IARC IACR 



International Association of Cancer Registries


International Agency for Research on Cancer


Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results



We would like to thank Ms. Jessica King for help with the joinpoint regression analyses of the SEER 9 data. There are no financial disclosures from any of the authors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Stewart BW, Wild CP (eds) (2014) World cancer Report 2014. Forman D, Ferlay J. The global and regional burden of cancer. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France 2014. Accessed 2 June 2015
  2. 2.
    Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N et al (2012) Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 13(8):790–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewster DH, Coebergh JW, Storm HH (2005) Population-based cancer registries: the invisible key to cancer control. Lancet Oncol 6(4):193–195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    USCS: U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2015) United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; 2014. Accessed 2 June 2015
  5. 5.
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M et al (eds) (2015) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Accessed 2 June 2015
  6. 6.
    Copeland G, Lake A, Firth R et al (eds) (2014) Cancer in North America: 2007–2011. Volume One: Combined Cancer Incidence for the United States, Canada and North America. Springfield, IL: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, Inc. May 2014. Accessed 2 June 2015
  7. 7.
    Coleman MP, Quaresma M, Berrino F et al (2008) Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD). Lancet Oncol 9(8):730–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allemani C, Weir HK, Carreira H et al (2015) Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25,676,887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2). Lancet 385(9972):977–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coleman MP, Forman D, Bryant H et al (2011) Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995–2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet 377(9760):127–138PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferlay J, Bray F, Steliarova-Foucher E et al (eds) (2014) Cancer incidence in five continents, CI5plus: IARC CancerBase No. 9 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2014. Accessed 2 June 2015
  11. 11.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL et al (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65(2):87–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hankey BF, Ries LA, Edwards BK (1999) The surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program: a national resource. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8(12):1117–1121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Multiple Primary and Histology Coding Rules. Accessed 9 Apr 2015
  14. 14.
    Working Group R (2005) International rules for multiple primary cancers (ICD-0 third edition). Eur J Cancer Prev 14(4):307–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A review of the definition for multiple primary cancers in the United States. Accessed 16 Apr 2015
  16. 16.
    Ferlay J, Burkhard C, Whelan S, Parkin DM (2005) Check and conversion programs for cancer registries (IACR/IACR Tools for Cancer Registries). IACR Technical Report No. 42 LyonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Filali K, Hedelin G, Schaffer P et al (1996) Multiple primary cancers and estimation of the incidence rates and trends. Eur J Cancer 32A(4):683–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Coyte A, Morrison DS, McLoone P (2014) Second primary cancer risk: the impact of applying different definitions of multiple primaries—results from a retrospective population-based cancer registry study. BMC Cancer 14:272PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fraumeni JF, Curtis RE, Edwards BK, Tucker MA (2006) Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Curtis RE, Freedman DM, Ron E, Ries LAG, Hacker DG, Edwards BK, Tucker MA, Fraumeni JF Jr (eds). New Malignancies among Cancer Survivors: SEER Cancer Registries, 1973–2000. National Cancer Institute, NIH Publ. No. 05-5302, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hotes JL, Ellison LF, Howe HL et al (2004) Variation in breast cancer counts using SEER and IARC multiple primary coding rules. Cancer Causes Control 15(2):185–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weir HK, Johnson CJ, Thompson TD (2013) The effect of multiple primary rules on population-based cancer survival. Cancer Causes Control 24(6):1231–1242PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brenner H, Hakulinen T (2007) Patients with previous cancer should not be excluded in international comparative cancer survival studies. Int J Cancer 121(10):2274–2278CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thornton ML (ed) Standards for Cancer Registries Volume II: Data Standards and Data Dictionary, Record Layout Version 14, 18th ed. Springfield, Ill.: North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, September 2013, revised November 2013. Accessed 2 June 2015
  24. 24.
    SEER Site Recode ICD-O-3 (1/27/2003) Definition. Accessed 2 Apr 2015
  25. 25.
    Hankey BF, Edwards BK, Ries LA et al (1991) Problems in cancer surveillance: delineating in situ and invasive bladder cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 83(6):384–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Age-Adjustment Using the 2000 Projected U.S. Population. [Interne] National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2001. Accessed 15 May 2014
  27. 27.
    SEER*stat software. Accessed 9 Apr 2015
  28. 28.
    Clegg LX, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN et al (2002) Impact of reporting delay and reporting error on cancer incidence rates and trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(20):1537–1545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joinpoint trend analysis software, version 4.1.0. Accessed 9 Apr 2015
  30. 30.
    Clegg LX, Hankey BF, Tiwari R et al (2009) Estimating average annual per cent change in trend analysis. Stat Med 28(29):3670–3682PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jemal A, Thun MJ, Ries LA et al (2008) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2005, featuring trends in lung cancer, tobacco use, and tobacco control. JNCI 100(23):1672–1694PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jemal A, Simard EP, Dorell C et al (2013) Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus(HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. JNCI 105(3):175–201PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA et al (2010) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 116(3):544–573PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Glass AG, Lacey JV Jr, Carreon JD et al (2007) Breast cancer incidence, 1980–2006: combined roles of menopausal hormone therapy, screening mammography, and estrogen receptor status. JNCI 99(15):1152–1161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bray F, McCarron P, Parkin DM (2004) The changing global patterns of female breast cancer incidence and mortality. Breast Cancer Res 6(6):229–239PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baron JC, Peyret C, Leroy M et al (1988) Prostate-specific antigen in prostatic cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 11(Suppl 2):S75–S76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM et al (2002) Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(13):981–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ et al (2014) Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial. BMJ 348:g366PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Habuchi T (2005) Origin of multifocal carcinomas of the bladder and upper urinary tract: molecular analysis and clinical implications. Int J Urol 12(8):709–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vincent GK, Velkoff VA (2010) The next four decades: the older population in the United States: 2010 to 2050. Curr Popu Rep P25-1138, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Accessed 2 June 2015
  41. 41.
    Mariotto AB, Rowland JH, Ries LA et al (2007) Multiple cancer prevalence: a growing challenge in long-term survivorship. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(3):566–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Travis LB (2006) The epidemiology of second primary cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(11):2020–2026CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ping Ren. Lifetime Mobility in the United States: 2010, American Community Survey Briefs. US Census Bureau; 2011. Accessed 18 June 2014
  44. 44.
    Wohler B, Qiao B, Weir HK et al (2014) Using the National Death Index to identify duplicate cancer incident cases in Florida and New York, 1996–2005. Prev Chronic Dis 11:E167PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health PromotionCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Cancer Data Registry of IdahoBoiseUSA
  3. 3.Georgia Center for Cancer StatisticsEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  4. 4.London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations