Persistent inequalities in 90-day colon cancer mortality: an English cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variation in colon cancer mortality occurring shortly after diagnosis is widely reported between socio-economic status (SES) groups: we investigated the role of different prognostic factors in explaining variation in 90-day mortality. METHODS: National cancer registry data were linked with national clinical audit data and Hospital Episode Statistics records for 69 769 adults diagnosed with colon cancer in England between January 2010 and March 2013. By gender, logistic regression was used to estimate the effects of SES, age and stage at diagnosis, comorbidity and surgical treatment on probability of death within 90 days from diagnosis. Multiple imputations accounted for missing stage. We predicted conditional probabilities by prognostic factor patterns and estimated the effect of SES (deprivation) from the difference between deprivation-specific average predicted probabilities. RESULTS: Ninety-day probability of death rose with increasing deprivation, even after accounting for the main prognostic factors. When setting the deprivation level to the least deprived group for all patients and keeping all other prognostic factors as observed, the differences between deprivation-specific averaged predicted probabilities of death were greatly reduced but persisted. Additional analysis suggested stage and treatment as potential contributors towards some of these inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Further examination of delayed diagnosis, access to treatment and post-operative care by deprivation group may provide additional insights into understanding deprivation disparities in mortality.

Deriving stage at diagnosis from multiple population-based sources: colorectal and lung cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Stage at diagnosis is a strong predictor of cancer survival. Differences in stage distributions and stage-specific management help explain geographic differences in cancer outcomes. Stage information is thus essential to improve policies for cancer control. Despite recent progress, stage information is often incomplete. Data collection methods and definition of stage categories are rarely reported. These inconsistencies may result in assigning conflicting stage for single tumours and confound the interpretation of international comparisons and temporal trends of stage-specific cancer outcomes. We propose an algorithm that uses multiple routine, population-based data sources to obtain the most complete and reliable stage information possible. METHODS: Our hierarchical approach derives a single stage category per tumour prioritising information deemed of best quality from multiple data sets and various individual components of tumour stage. It incorporates rules from the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification of malignant tumours. The algorithm is illustrated for colorectal and lung cancer in England. We linked the cancer-specific Clinical Audit data (collected from clinical multi-disciplinary teams) to national cancer registry data. We prioritise stage variables from the Clinical Audit and added information from the registry when needed. We compared stage distribution and stage-specific net survival using two sets of definitions of summary stage with contrasting levels of assumptions for dealing with missing individual TNM components. This exercise extends a previous algorithm we developed for international comparisons of stage-specific survival. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2012, 163 915 primary colorectal cancer cases and 168 158 primary lung cancer cases were diagnosed in adults in England. Using the most restrictive definition of summary stage (valid information on all individual TNM components), colorectal cancer stage completeness was 56.6% (from 33.8% in 2008 to 85.2% in 2012). Lung cancer stage completeness was 76.6% (from 57.3% in 2008 to 91.4% in 2012). Stage distribution differed between strategies to define summary stage. Stage-specific survival was consistent with published reports. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a robust strategy to harmonise the derivation of stage that can be adapted for other cancers and data sources in different countries. The general approach of prioritising good-quality information, reporting sources of individual TNM variables, and reporting of assumptions for dealing with missing data is applicable to any population-based cancer research using stage. Moreover, our research highlights the need for further transparency in the way stage categories are defined and reported, acknowledging the limitations, and potential discrepancies of using readily available stage variables.

Cancer survival differences between South Asians and non-South Asians of England in 1986-2004, accounting for age at diagnosis and deprivation.

BACKGROUND: South Asian migrants show lower cancer incidence than their host population in England for most major cancers. We seek to study the ethnic differences in survival from cancer. METHODS: We described and modelled the effect of ethnicity, time, age and deprivation on survival for the five most incident cancers in each sex in South Asians in England between 1986 and 2004 using national cancer registry data. South Asian ethnicity was flagged using the validated name-recognition algorithm SANGRA (South Asian Names and Group Recognition Algorithm). RESULTS: We observed survival advantage in South Asians in earlier periods. This ethnic gap either remained constant or narrowed over time. By 2004, age-standardised net survival was comparable for all cancers except three in men, where South Asians had higher survival 5 years after diagnosis: colorectal (58.9% vs 53.6%), liver (15.0% vs 9.4%) and lung (15.9% vs 9.3%). Compared with non-South Asians, South Asians experienced a slower increase in breast and prostate cancer survival, both cancers associated with either a screening programme or an early diagnosis test. We did not find differential patterns in survival by deprivation between both ethnicities. CONCLUSIONS: Considering recent survival trends, appropriate action is required to avoid deficits in cancer survival among South Asians in the near future.

Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000-2007: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: We investigate whether differences in breast cancer survival in six high-income countries can be explained by differences in stage at diagnosis using routine data from population-based cancer registries. METHODS: We analysed the data on 257,362 women diagnosed with breast cancer during 2000-7 and registered in 13 population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Flexible parametric hazard models were used to estimate net survival and the excess hazard of dying from breast cancer up to 3 years after diagnosis. RESULTS: Age-standardised 3-year net survival was 87-89% in the UK and Denmark, and 91-94% in the other four countries. Stage at diagnosis was relatively advanced in Denmark: only 30% of women had Tumour, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) stage I disease, compared with 42-45% elsewhere. Women in the UK had low survival for TNM stage III-IV disease compared with other countries. CONCLUSION: International differences in breast cancer survival are partly explained by differences in stage at diagnosis, and partly by differences in stage-specific survival. Low overall survival arises if the stage distribution is adverse (e.g. Denmark) but stage-specific survival is normal; or if the stage distribution is typical but stage-specific survival is low (e.g. UK). International differences in staging diagnostics and stage-specific cancer therapies should be investigated.

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.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. Persistent regional and international differences in survival represent many avoidable deaths. Differences in survival have prompted or guided cancer control strategies. This is the first study in a programme to investigate international survival disparities, with the aim of informing health policy to raise standards and reduce inequalities in survival. METHODS: Data from population-based cancer registries in 12 jurisdictions in six countries were provided for 2·4 million adults diagnosed with primary colorectal, lung, breast (women), or ovarian cancer during 1995-2007, with follow-up to Dec 31, 2007. Data quality control and analyses were done centrally with a common protocol, overseen by external experts. We estimated 1-year and 5-year relative survival, constructing 252 complete life tables to control for background mortality by age, sex, and calendar year. We report age-specific and age-standardised relative survival at 1 and 5 years, and 5-year survival conditional on survival to the first anniversary of diagnosis. We also examined incidence and mortality trends during 1985-2005. FINDINGS: Relative survival improved during 1995-2007 for all four cancers in all jurisdictions. Survival was persistently higher in Australia, Canada, and Sweden, intermediate in Norway, and lower in Denmark, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, particularly in the first year after diagnosis and for patients aged 65 years and older. International differences narrowed at all ages for breast cancer, from about 9% to 5% at 1 year and from about 14% to 8% at 5 years, but less or not at all for the other cancers. For colorectal cancer, the international range narrowed only for patients aged 65 years and older, by 2-6% at 1 year and by 2-3% at 5 years. INTERPRETATION: Up-to-date survival trends show increases but persistent differences between countries. Trends in cancer incidence and mortality are broadly consistent with these trends in survival. Data quality and changes in classification are not likely explanations. The patterns are consistent with later diagnosis or differences in treatment, particularly in Denmark and the UK, and in patients aged 65 years and older. FUNDING: Department of Health, England; and Cancer Research UK.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were observed for many cancers in England during 1981-1999. The NHS Cancer Plan (2000) aimed to improve survival and reduce these inequalities. This study examines trends in the deprivation gap in cancer survival after implementation of the Plan. MATERIALS AND METHOD: We examined relative survival among adults diagnosed with 1 of 21 common cancers in England during 1996-2006, followed up to 31 December 2007. Three periods were defined: 1996-2000 (before the Cancer Plan), 2001-2003 (initialisation) and 2004-2006 (implementation). We estimated the difference in survival between the most deprived and most affluent groups (deprivation gap) at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis, and the change in the deprivation gap both within and between these periods. RESULTS: Survival improved for most cancers, but inequalities in survival were still wide for many cancers in 2006. Only the deprivation gap in 1-year survival narrowed slightly over time. A majority of the socioeconomic disparities in survival occurred soon after a cancer diagnosis, regardless of the cancer prognosis. CONCLUSION: The recently observed reduction in the deprivation gap was minor and limited to 1-year survival, suggesting that, so far, the Cancer Plan has little effect on those inequalities. Our findings highlight that earlier diagnosis and rapid access to optimal treatment should be ensured for all socioeconomic groups.

Cancer mortality in ethnic South Asian migrants in England and Wales (1993-2003): patterns in the overall population and in first and subsequent generations.

BACKGROUND: Cancer mortality has been examined among ethnic South Asian migrants in England and Wales, but not by generation of migration. METHODS: Using South Asian mortality records, identified by a name-recognition algorithm, and census information, age-standardised rates among South Asians, and South Asian vs non-South Asian rate ratios, were calculated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: All-cancer rates in ethnic South Asians were half of those in non-South Asians in first-generation (all-cancer-standardised mortality ratio (SMR) in males 0.51 and in females 0.56) and subsequent-generation South Asians (SMR in males 0.43 and in females 0.36). The higher mortality in first-generation South Asians for liver (both sexes), oral cavity and gallbladder cancer (females), particularly marked among Bangladeshis, was reduced in subsequent generations.

Comparison of surgical vs chemical sphincterotomy using botulinum toxin for the treatment of chronic anal fissure: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse systematically prospective randomized controlled trials dealing with the effectiveness of surgical sphincterotomy (SS) vs chemical sphincterotomy (CS) using botulinum toxin for the management of chronic anal fissure (CAF). METHOD: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Prospective randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of SS vs CS using botulinum toxin were selected and analysed to generate the summative outcome. RESULTS: Four prospective randomized controlled trials dealing with SS vs CS using botulinum injection, which included 279 CAF patients, were analysed. Based on the random effects model, there was a higher complication rate [Risk ratio (RR) 14.54 (-9.84, -38.9) 95% CI, df = 2, P < 0.0163] and a higher risk of transient faecal incontinence [RR 6.39 (-2.37, -15.1) 95% CI, df = 3, P < 0.0001] in the SS group than in the CS group. However, there was significant heterogeneity among the trials (Q = 8 408 891, P < 0.0001), indicating a wide confidence interval range; thus, the inferiority of SS could not be shown. SS had a significantly higher healing rate [RR 1.63, (1.34-1.91) 95% CI, df = 3, P < 0.0110] and a significantly lower recurrence rate [RR 0.35 (0.33-0.38) 95% CI, df = 3, P < 0.0221] than CS. CONCLUSION: Both CS and SS are comparable in the management of CAF. There are no differences in the complication rates and incontinence rates between the two procedures. SS has a higher healing rate and a lower recurrence rate than CS. As long as the patient is willing to accept a negligible risk of transient faecal incontinence, SS should be the first-line treatment for CAF.