Gemma Gatta

Istituto Nazionale Tumori "Fondazione Pascale", Napoli, Campania, Italy

Are you Gemma Gatta?

Claim your profile

Publications (174)903.94 Total impact

  • Source
    European Journal of Cancer 10/2015; 51(51):2130– 2143. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.07.043 · 5.42 Impact Factor
  • European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 09/2015; 51(15). DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.08.019 · 5.42 Impact Factor
  • European Journal of Surgical Oncology 04/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ejso.2015.04.002 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA). Copyright © 2014 Allemani et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    The Lancet 03/2015; 385:977-1010. DOI:10.1016/50140-6736(14)62038-9 · 45.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Cancer survivorship is an increasingly important issue in cancer control. Life expectancy of patients diagnosed with breast, colon, and testicular cancers, stratified by age at diagnosis and time since diagnosis, is provided as an indicator to evaluate future mortality risks and health care needs of cancer survivors. Patients and methods: The standard period life table methodology was applied to estimate excess mortality risk for cancer patients diagnosed in 1985-2011 from SEER registries and mortality data of the general US population. The sensitivity of life expectancy estimates on different assumptions was evaluated. Results: Younger patients with colon cancer showed wider differences in life expectancy compared with that of the general population (11.2 years in women and 10.7 in men at age 45-49 years) than older patients (6.3 and 5.8 at age 60-64 years, respectively). Life expectancy progressively increases in patients surviving the first years, up to 4 years from diagnosis, and then starts to decrease again, approaching that of the general population. For breast cancer, the initial drop in life expectancy is less marked, and again with wider differences in younger patients, varying from 8.7 at age 40-44 years to 2.4 at ages 70-74 years. After diagnosis, life expectancy still decreases with time, but less than that in the general population, slowly approaching that of cancer-free women. Life expectancy of men diagnosed with testicular cancer at age 30 years is estimated as 45.2 years, 2 years less than cancer-free men of the same age. The difference becomes 1.3 years for patients surviving the first year, and then slowly approaches zero with increasing survival time. Conclusions: Life expectancy provides meaningful information on cancer patients, and can help in assessing when a cancer survivor can be considered as cured.
    Annals of Oncology 03/2015; 26(6). DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdv131 · 7.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) are rare primary mediastinal tumors arising from thymic epithelium. Their rarity and complexity hinder investigations of their causes and therapy development. Here we summarize the existing knowledge regarding medical treatment of these tumors, and thoroughly review the known genetic aberrations associated with TETs and the present status of potential biological treatments. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), stem cell factor receptor (KIT), insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R), and vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF-A, VEGF-B, and VEGF-2) are overexpressed in TETs. EGFR overexpression in TETs is associated with higher stage, and IGF-1R overexpression has poor prognostic value. Data indicate that anti-IGF1R monoclonal antibodies, and inhibitors of angiogenesis, somatostatin (SST) receptors, histone deacetylase (HDAC), mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and cyclin-dependent kinases (CDK) may be active against TETs. Continued investigations in this field could lead to advancement of targeted and biological therapies for TETs. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email:
    Annals of Oncology 11/2014; 26(5). DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdu527 · 7.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    G. Gatta · A. Trama
  • Gemma Gatta · Laura Botta
    Epidemiologia e prevenzione 02/2014; 37(6):363-6. · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • G. Gatta · L. Botta · S. Rossi
    The Lancet Oncology 02/2014; 15(2):E52-E52. · 24.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Cancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. EUROCARE—the largest cooperative study of population-based cancer survival in Europe—has shown persistent differences between countries for cancer survival, although in general, cancer survival is improving. Major changes in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation occurred in the early 2000s. EUROCARE-5 assesses their effect on cancer survival in 29 European countries. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we analysed data from 107 cancer registries for more than 10 million patients with cancer diagnosed up to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Uniform quality control procedures were applied to all datasets. For patients diagnosed 2000–07, we calculated 5-year relative survival for 46 cancers weighted by age and country. We also calculated country-specific and age-specific survival for ten common cancers, together with survival differences between time periods (for 1999–2001, 2002–04, and 2005–07). Findings 5-year relative survival generally increased steadily over time for all European regions. The largest increases from 1999–2001 to 2005–07 were for prostate cancer (73·4% [95% CI 72·9–73·9] vs 81·7% [81·3–82·1]), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (53·8% [53·3–54·4] vs 60·4% [60·0–60·9]), and rectal cancer (52·1% [51·6–52·6] vs 57·6% [57·1–58·1]). Survival in eastern Europe was generally low and below the European mean, particularly for cancers with good or intermediate prognosis. Survival was highest for northern, central, and southern Europe. Survival in the UK and Ireland was intermediate for rectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, skin melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but low for kidney, stomach, ovarian, colon, and lung cancers. Survival for lung cancer in the UK and Ireland was much lower than for other regions for all periods, although results for lung cancer in some regions (central and eastern Europe) might be affected by overestimation. Survival usually decreased with age, although to different degrees depending on region and cancer type. Interpretation The major advances in cancer management that occurred up to 2007 seem to have resulted in improved survival in Europe. Likely explanations of differences in survival between countries include: differences in stage at diagnosis and accessibility to good care, different diagnostic intensity and screening approaches, and differences in cancer biology. Variations in socioeconomic, lifestyle, and general health between populations might also have a role. Further studies are needed to fully interpret these findings and how to remedy disparities. Funding Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation, Cariplo Foundation.
    The Lancet Oncology 12/2013; DOI:10.1016/51470-2045(13)70546-1 · 24.69 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Summary Background Survival and cure rates for childhood cancers in Europe have greatly improved over the past 40 years and are mostly good, although not in all European countries. The EUROCARE-5 survival study estimates survival of children diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2007, assesses whether survival differences among European countries have changed, and investigates changes from 1999 to 2007. Methods We analysed survival data for 157 499 children (age 0—14 years) diagnosed between Jan 1, 1978 and Dec 31, 2007. They came from 74 population-based cancer registries in 29 countries. We calculated observed, country-weighted 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival for major cancers and all cancers combined. For comparison between countries, we used the corrected group prognosis method to provide survival probabilities adjusted for multiple confounders (sex, age, period of diagnosis, and, for all cancers combined without CNS cancers, casemix). Age-adjusted survival differences by area and calendar period were calculated with period analysis and were given for all cancers combined and the major cancers. Findings We analysed 59 579 cases. For all cancers combined for children diagnosed in 2000—07, 1-year survival was 90·6% (95% CI 90·2—90·9), 3-year survival was 81·0 % (95% CI 80·5—81·4), and 5-year survival was 77·9% (95% CI 77·4—78·3). For all cancers combined, 5-year survival rose from 76·1% (74·4—77·7) for 1999—2001, to 79·1% (77·3—80·7) for 2005—07 (hazard ratio 0·973, 95% CI 0·965—0·982, p<0·0001). The greatest improvements were in eastern Europe, where 5-year survival rose from 65·2% (95% CI 63·1—67·3) in 1999—2001, to 70·2% (67·9—72·3) in 2005—07. Europe-wide average yearly change in mortality (hazard ratio) was 0·939 (95% CI 0·919—0·960) for acute lymphoid leukaemia, 0·959 (0·933—0·986) for acute myeloid leukaemia, and 0·940 (0·897—0·984) for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Mortality for all of Europe did not change significantly for Hodgkin's lymphoma, Burkitt's lymphoma, CNS tumours, neuroblastoma, Wilms' tumour, Ewing's sarcoma, osteosarcoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. Disparities for 5-year survival persisted between countries and regions, ranging from 70% to 82% (for 2005—07). Interpretation Several reasons might explain persisting inequalities. The lack of health-care resources is probably most important, especially in some eastern European countries with limited drug supply, lack of specialised centres with multidisciplinary teams, delayed diagnosis and treatment, poor management of treatment, and drug toxicity. In the short term, cross-border care and collaborative programmes could help to narrow the survival gaps in Europe. Funding Italian Ministry of Health, European Commission, Compagnia di San Paolo Foundation.
    The Lancet Oncology 12/2013; DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70548-5 · 24.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper describes the usage and the performance evaluation of the completeness index method in the ‘Surveillance of Rare Cancers in Europe project’ (RARECARE) for estimating rare cancer prevalence in Europe. The 15-year prevalence at 1st January 2003 for 255 cancers is obtained from a pool of 22 RARECARE cancer registries (CRs). Incidence and survival models are applied to the RARECARE database to estimate the parameters from which the completeness indices are calculated. Complete prevalence is obtained adjusting the observed 15-year prevalence by the completeness index, to account for those cancer survivors diagnosed before the CR activity started. Main factors influencing the performance of the completeness index method for rare cancers are the same as for common cancers: age distribution of incidence and lethality of the cancer. For cancers occurring in the elderly, with low survival rates and consequently a restricted number of long-term survivors we obtained completeness indices higher than 0.9. Values lower than 0.7 correspond to those cancers with good prognosis and/or incidence more concentrated at the younger ages, indicating that 15 years of follow up are insufficient to detect all prevalent cases. Validation analysis shows that for a restricted subgroup of rare cancers with very low incidence and low survival, the completeness indices were not able to adequately correct the observed prevalence even considering a registration period of 20 years. On average, sensitivity analyses show a slight overestimation of complete prevalence for rare and common cancers whose increasing incidence is known in literature. RARECARE is the largest project on rare cancers conducted to date. Improving health care programs for cancer survivors is a public health priority and prevalence data which provides important information in this field should be regularly asked to Member States and included in the EU health statistics.
    12/2013; 37(6):850–856. DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2013.08.001
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and background: In Veneto a regional cancer registry has been operating since 1987 which provides incidence and survival data for the region. It currently covers 48% of the regional population. The aim of this paper is to provide estimates of the incidence, mortality and prevalence of the major cancers for the whole Veneto region in the period 1970-2015. Methods: The estimates were obtained by applying the MIAMOD method, a statistical back-calculation approach to derive incidence and prevalence figures starting from mortality and relative survival data. Survival was modeled on the basis of published data from the Italian cancer registries. Results: In 2012 the most frequent cancer sites were colon-rectum, prostate and breast with 4,677, 3,760 and 3,729 new diagnosed cases, respectively. The incidence rates were estimated to increase constantly for female lung cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma, while they were decreasing for cervical cancer and stomach cancer. For male lung cancer and female breast cancer the rates increased, reaching a peak, and then decreased. In the last years of the period of analysis, mortality declined for all cancers: the highest number of deaths (2,390 in both sexes) was estimated for lung cancer in 2012. Prevalence was increasing for all the considered cancer sites with the exception of lung cancer in men, for which the prevalence was estimated to increase until 2007 and then stabilize. By contrast, the cervical cancer decreased during the whole period. In 2012 breast cancer had the highest prevalence, with about 52,000 cases. Conclusion: This paper provides a description of the burden of the major cancers in Veneto until 2015. The estimates highlight the continuing reduction of cancer mortality. This decline can be related to the improvement of clinical treatments and to multidisciplinary treatment approaches. In order for this positive trend to continue, implementation and reinforcement of the screening programs is needed, especially for breast and colorectal cancer.
    10/2013; 99(3):308-17. DOI:10.1700/1334.14794
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and background: Cancer registration in Lombardy covers almost half of the regional population and started in 1976 in the Varese province. The aim of this paper is to provide estimates of the incidence, mortality and prevalence of seven major cancers for the entire Lombardy region in the period 1970-2015. Methods: The estimates were obtained by applying the MIAMOD method, a statistical back-calculation approach to derive incidence and prevalence figures starting from mortality and relative survival data. Published data from the Italian cancer registries were modeled in order to estimate the regional cancer survival. Results: In Lombardy, about 9,000 new cases of breast cancer, 8,500 of colorectal cancer, 7,200 of prostate cancer and 6,700 of lung cancer were expected to be diagnosed in the year 2012. Incidence rates are still rising for female breast cancer, skin melanoma in both sexes, and lung cancer in women. By contrast, the rates have been declining for cervix and stomach cancer. For lung cancer in men, prostate cancer and colorectal cancer the rates increased, reaching a peak in different periods, and then decreased. Prevalence increased for all cancers considered except cervix cancer. The rise was less pronounced in stomach cancer due to the impressive reduction of its incidence and was striking for breast and prostate cancer, with 116,000 and 58,900 prevalent cases in 2012. Mortality dropped for all considered cancers with the only exception of lung cancer in women. Conclusion: This up-to-date picture of the cancer risk and burden in Lombardy shows the increasing demand for oncology services as one of the major challenges for the region. However, primary prevention is still the only way to simultaneously reduce incidence, prevalence and mortality rates, thus saving further lives and preserving health resources.
    10/2013; 99(3):277-84. DOI:10.1700/1334.14791
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and background: A regional population-based cancer registry that provides incidence and survival data has become active only recently. Since it is important to know the time trends of basic epidemiological indicators to understand the cancer burden in the region, this paper will provide incidence, prevalence and mortality estimates in the region for seven major cancers for the period 1970-2015. Methods: The estimates were obtained by applying the MIAMOD method, a statistical back-calculation approach to derive incidence and prevalence figures starting from mortality and relative survival data. Survival was modeled on the basis of published data from the Italian cancer registries. Results: The incidence rates are estimated to be still increasing for female breast cancer, colorectal cancer in men and skin melanoma in both sexes. By contrast, the incidence rates indicate a decreasing trend for cervix uteri cancer and stomach cancer, the latter both in men and women. For these cancers an analogous trend is observed for mortality, confirming the reduction of the risk factors related to these cancer types. The incidence rates for lung cancer and prostate cancer in men were estimated to rise, reach a peak, and then decrease in the last part of the considered period. Prevalence increased for all the considered cancers except cervix cancer. The increase was striking for breast cancer and less pronounced for stomach cancer in both genders. Conclusion: This paper provides a description of the burden of the major cancers until 2015. The results highlight the need to reinforce effective preventive measures to contrast cancers related to an unhealthy lifestyle and to increase the compliance with organized screening programs to reduce the colorectal and breast cancer burden.
    10/2013; 99(3):382-9. DOI:10.1700/1334.14803
  • Gemma Gatta · Silvia Rossi · Riccardo Capocaccia
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Incidence, prevalence and mortality indicators, as provided in this monographic issue for each of the Italian regions and for the major cancers (stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, uterine cervix, prostate cancer and skin melanoma), provide necessary information for cancer control activities. In Italy, these activities are mainly organized on a regional level. Incidence depends on the distribution of risk factors in the population and is monitored to assess the efficacy of primary prevention programs as well as to measure the effect of screening activities. Mortality is a summary indicator incorporating the effects of both occurrence and survival. Finally, the prevalence of people with a diagnosis of cancer within a population is a direct measure of the demand for health care and social services. When taken separately, each of these indicators provides a partial view of the cancer phenomenon and should therefore be interpreted with caution. In this paper we give some examples of the uses of these indicators, and also of the interpretation difficulties by relating the regional cancer incidence to tobacco use, overweight and residence in polluted sites. We comment on the observed mortality trends in terms of their contribution to incidence and survival. We associate the estimated trends in cancer prevalence from 1990 to 2015 with the gross domestic product, an indicator of the resources available in Italy. The simultaneous consideration of all three indicators, as was done throughout this monograph by means of a unique methodology, is suggested for public health use.
    10/2013; 99(3):439-43. DOI:10.1700/1334.14809
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess the extent to which stage at diagnosis and adherence to treatment guidelines may explain the persistent differences in colorectal cancer survival between the USA and Europe. A high-resolution study using detailed clinical data on Dukes' stage, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow-up, collected directly from medical records by trained abstractors under a single protocol, with standardised quality control and central statistical analysis. 21 population-based registries in seven US states and nine European countries provided data for random samples comprising 12 523 adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 1996-1998. Logistic regression models were used to compare adherence to 'standard care' in the USA and Europe. Net survival and excess risk of death were estimated with flexible parametric models. The proportion of Dukes' A and B tumours was similar in the USA and Europe, while that of Dukes' C was more frequent in the USA (38% vs 21%) and of Dukes' D more frequent in Europe (22% vs 10%). Resection with curative intent was more frequent in the USA (85% vs 75%). Elderly patients (75-99 years) were 70-90% less likely to receive radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Age-standardised 5-year net survival was similar in the USA (58%) and Northern and Western Europe (54-56%) and lowest in Eastern Europe (42%). The mean excess hazard up to 5 years after diagnosis was highest in Eastern Europe, especially among elderly patients and those with Dukes' D tumours. The wide differences in colorectal cancer survival between Europe and the USA in the late 1990s are probably attributable to earlier stage and more extensive use of surgery and adjuvant treatment in the USA. Elderly patients with colorectal cancer received surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy less often than younger patients, despite evidence that they could also have benefited.
    BMJ Open 09/2013; 3(9):e003055. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003055 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    JNCI Monographs 08/2013; 2013(46):124-30. DOI:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt011
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer survival varies markedly across Europe. We analyzed variations in all-cancer 5-year relative survival in relation to macroeconomic and health-care indicators, and 5-year relative survival for three major cancers (colorectal, prostate, breast) in relation to application of standard treatments, to serve as baseline for monitoring the efficacy of new European initiatives to improve cancer survival. Five-year relative survival data were from the European cancer registry-based study of cancer patients' survival and care (EUROCARE-4). Macroeconomic and health system data were from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and European Observatory on Health Care Systems. Information on treatments given was from EUROCARE studies. Total national health spending varied widely across Europe and correlated linearly with survival (R = 0.8). Countries with high spending had high numbers of diagnostic and radiotherapy units, and 5-year relative survival was good (>50%). The treatments given for major cancers also varied; advanced stage at diagnosis was associated with poor 5-year relative survival and low odds of receiving standard treatment for breast and colorectal cancer.
    JNCI Monographs 08/2013; 2013(46):79-87. DOI:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgt004
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Because of the low incidence, and limited opportunities for large patient volume experiences, there are very few relevant studies of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). A large population-based database (including cancer patients diagnosed from 1978 to 2002 and registered in 76 population-based cancer registries [CRs]), provided by the project 'surveillance of rare cancers in Europe' (RARECARE) is used to describe the basic indicators of incidence, prevalence and survival of NETs, giving a unique overview on the burden of NETs in Europe. NETs at all cancer sites, excluding lung, were analysed in this study. In total over 20,000 incident cases of NETs were analysed and a data quality check upon specific NETs was performed. The overall incidence rate for NETs was 25/1,000,000 and was highest in patients aged 65 years and older with well differentiated endocrine carcinomas (non-functioning pancreatic and gastrointestinal) (40 per 1,000,000). We estimated that slightly more than 100,000 people were diagnosed with NETs and still alive in EU27 at the beginning of 2008. Overall, NETs had a 5 year relative survival of 50%; survival was low (12%) for poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma, and relatively high (64%) for well differentiated carcinoma (not functioning of the pancreas and digestive organs). Within NETs, endocrine carcinoma of thyroid gland had the best 5-year relative survival (82%). Because of the complexity and number of the different disciplines involved with NETs (as they arise in many organs), a multidisciplinary approach delivered in highly qualified reference centres and an international network between those centres is recommended.
    European Journal of Cancer 07/2013; 49:2565-2578. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.02.029 · 5.42 Impact Factor

Publication Stats

7k Citations
903.94 Total Impact Points


  • 1998–2015
    • Istituto Nazionale Tumori "Fondazione Pascale"
      Napoli, Campania, Italy
  • 1997–2014
    • Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano
      • • s.c. Medicina Oncologica 1
      • • Dipartimento di Medicina Predittiva e per la Prevenzione
      Milano, Lombardy, Italy
  • 2009
    • German Cancer Research Center
      • Division of Clinical Epidemiology and Aging Research
      Heidelberg, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany
    • Centro di Riferimento per l'Epidemiologia e la Prevenzione Oncologica in Piemonte
      Torino, Piedmont, Italy
  • 1992–2009
    • CRO Centro di Riferimento Oncologico di Aviano
      • Division of Medical Oncology A
      Aviano, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy
  • 1990–2009
    • Istituto Superiore di Sanità
      • National Centre for Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health Promotion
      Roma, Latium, Italy
  • 2008
    • University of Florence
      Florens, Tuscany, Italy
  • 1991–2008
    • Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori
      Meldola, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
  • 2007
    • Istituto di Cura e Cura a Carattere Scientifico Basilicata
      Rionero in Vulture, Basilicate, Italy
  • 2005
    • University of Oxford
      Oxford, England, United Kingdom
  • 2003
    • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
      • Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health
      London, ENG, United Kingdom
  • 1996
    • Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
      Rotterdam, South Holland, Netherlands