Use of chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on international variation in chemotherapy use, despite it being a key treatment type for some patients with cancer. Here, we aimed to examine the presence and size of such variation. METHODS: This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), eight Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring from within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in chemotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 893 461 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 111 569 (12·5%) did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 781 892 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in chemotherapy use for all studied cancers, with wide 95% PIs: 47·5 to 81·2 (pooled estimate 66·4%) for ovarian cancer, 34·9 to 59·8 (47·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 22·3 to 62·3 (40·8%) for rectal cancer, 25·7 to 55·5 (39·6%) for stomach cancer, 17·2 to 56·3 (34·1%) for pancreatic cancer, 17·9 to 49·0 (31·4%) for lung cancer, 18·6 to 43·8 (29·7%) for colon cancer, and 3·5 to 50·7 (16·1%) for liver cancer. For patients with stage 3 colon cancer, the interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with colon cancer (95% PI 38·5 to 78·4; 60·1%). Patients aged 85-99 years had 20-times lower odds of chemotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with very large interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio 0·05; 95% PI 0·01 to 0·19). There was large variation in median time to first chemotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation, particularly for rectal cancer (95% PI -15·5 to 193·9 days; pooled estimate 89·2 days). Patients aged 85-99 years had slightly shorter median time to first chemotherapy compared with those aged 65-74 years, consistently between jurisdictions (-3·7 days, 95% PI -7·6 to 0·1). INTERPRETATION: Large variation in use and time to chemotherapy initiation were observed between the participating jurisdictions, alongside large and variable age group differences in chemotherapy use. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, the underlying reasons for these patterns need to be established. FUNDING: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust).

Use of radiotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence on variation in radiotherapy use in different countries, although it is a key treatment modality for some patients with cancer. Here we aimed to examine such variation. METHODS: This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), nine Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in radiotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data, or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 902 312 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 115 357 (12·8%) did not meet inclusion criteria, and 786,955 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in radiotherapy use, with wide 95% PIs: 17·8 to 82·4 (pooled estimate 50·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 35·5 to 55·2 (45·2%) for rectal cancer, 28·6 to 54·0 (40·6%) for lung cancer, and 4·6 to 53·6 (19·0%) for stomach cancer. For patients with stage 2-3 rectal cancer, interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with rectal cancer (95% PI 37·0 to 84·6; pooled estimate 64·2%). Radiotherapy use was infrequent but variable in patients with pancreatic (95% PI 1·7 to 16·5%), liver (1·8 to 11·2%), colon (1·6 to 5·0%), and ovarian (0·8 to 7·6%) cancer. Patients aged 85-99 years had three-times lower odds of radiotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with substantial interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio [OR] 0·38; 95% PI 0·20-0·73). Women had slightly lower odds of radiotherapy use than men (OR 0·88, 95% PI 0·77-1·01). There was large variation in median time to first radiotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation (eg, oesophageal 95% PI 11·3 days to 112·8 days; pooled estimate 62·0 days; rectal 95% PI 34·7 days to 77·3 days; pooled estimate 56·0 days). Older patients had shorter median time to radiotherapy with appreciable interjurisdictional variation (-9·5 days in patients aged 85-99 years vs 65-74 years, 95% PI -26·4 to 7·4). INTERPRETATION: Large interjurisdictional variation in both use and time to radiotherapy initiation were observed, alongside large and variable age differences. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, underlying reasons for these differences need to be established. FUNDING: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust).

Prognosis of cancer survivors: estimation based on differential equations.

We present a method for estimating several prognosis parameters for cancer survivors. The method utilizes the fact that these parameters solve differential equations driven by cumulative hazards. By expressing the parameters as solutions to differential equations, we develop generic estimators that are easy to implement with standard statistical software. We explicitly describe the estimators for prognosis parameters that are often employed in practice, but also for parameters that, to our knowledge, have not been used to evaluate prognosis. We then apply these parameters to assess the prognosis of five common cancers in Norway.

Distribution and characteristics of malignant tumours by lung lobe.

BACKGROUND: The main focus on the characteristics of malignant lung tumours has been the size, position within the lobe, and infiltration into neighbouring structures. The aim of this study was to investigate the distribution and characteristics of malignant tumours between the lung lobes and whether the diagnosis, treatment, and outcome differed based on location. METHODS: This study is based on 10,849 lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2018-2022 with complete data on the location and characteristics of the tumours. The proportions of tumours in each lobe divided by its volume were termed the relative proportion. RESULTS: The right upper lobe comprised 31.2% of the tumours and 17.6% of the lung volume. The relative proportion of 1.77 was higher than in the other lobes (p < 0.001). The right middle lobe had a relative proportion of 0.64 but the highest proportion of neuroendocrine tumours (26.1% vs. 15.3 on average). Surgical resection was more often performed in patients with tumours in the lower lobes, and curative radiotherapy was more often performed in the upper lobes. After adjusting for age, sex, stage, and histology, the location of the tumour was found to be a significant independent predictor for resection but not for survival. CONCLUSION: The main finding of the right upper lobe as a site of predilection for lung cancer is similar to tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis. This may be explained that most of the inhaled air, containing bacilli, inorganic particles or tobacco smoke goes to the upper and right parts of the lung.

Shifting incidence and survival of epithelial ovarian cancer (1995-2014): A SurvMark-2 study.

The aim of the study is to provide a comprehensive assessment of incidence and survival trends of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by histological subtype across seven high income countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom). Data on invasive EOC diagnosed in women aged 15 to 99 years during 1995 to 2014 were obtained from 20 cancer registries. Age standardized incidence rates and average annual percentage change were calculated by subtype for all ages and age groups (15-64 and 65-99 years). Net survival (NS) was estimated by subtype, age group and 5-year period using Pohar-Perme estimator. Our findings showed marked increase in serous carcinoma incidence was observed between 1995 and 2014 among women aged 65 to 99 years with average annual increase ranging between 2.2% and 5.8%. We documented a marked decrease in the incidence of adenocarcinoma "not otherwise specified" with estimates ranging between 4.4% and 7.4% in women aged 15 to 64 years and between 2.0% and 3.7% among the older age group. Improved survival, combining all EOC subtypes, was observed for all ages combined over the 20-year study period in all countries with 5-year NS absolute percent change ranging between 5.0 in Canada and 12.6 in Denmark. Several factors such as changes in guidelines and advancement in diagnostic tools may potentially influence the observed shift in histological subtypes and temporal trends. Progress in clinical management and treatment over the past decades potentially plays a role in the observed improvements in EOC survival.

Improving communication of cancer survival statistics-feasibility of implementing model-based algorithms in routine publications.

BACKGROUND: Routine reporting of cancer patient survival is important, both to monitor the effectiveness of health care and to inform about prognosis following a cancer diagnosis. A range of different survival measures exist, each serving different purposes and targeting different audiences. It is important that routine publications expand on current practice and provide estimates on a wider range of survival measures. We examine the feasibility of automated production of such statistics. METHODS: We used data on 23 cancer sites obtained from the Cancer Registry of Norway (CRN). We propose an automated way of estimating flexible parametric relative survival models and calculating estimates of net survival, crude probabilities, and loss in life expectancy across many cancer sites and subgroups of patients. RESULTS: For 21 of 23 cancer sites, we were able to estimate survival models without assuming proportional hazards. Reliable estimates of all desired measures were obtained for all cancer sites. DISCUSSION: It may be challenging to implement new survival measures in routine publications as it can require the application of modeling techniques. We propose a way of automating the production of such statistics and show that we can obtain reliable estimates across a range of measures and subgroups of patients.

Risk and survival in colorectal cancer with increasing body mass index: A nationwide population-based cohort study.

AIM: The aim was to explore potential associations between the body mass index (BMI) and the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), including subsites of the colon, and cancer-specific death. METHODS: A registry-based cohort study was conducted with baseline data gathered from the Norwegian Tuberculosis Screening Programme, collected between 1963 and 1975, and linked to follow-up data from the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Cox regression models were used to explore associations between BMI and CRC risk and cancer-specific death. RESULTS: Of 1 723 692 included individuals, 76 616 developed CRC during 55 370 707 person-years of follow-up. In men, a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with an increased risk of colon cancer, including both right and left subsites, and rectal cancer. Allowing for nonlinearities, we found a U-shaped association for the right colon and an inverse U-shape for the left colon and rectum cancer. In women, a 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI in early adulthood was associated with increased risk of colon cancer, including both subsites. In women, an increased risk of CRC death with increasing BMI was found for colon cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Men of all ages have an increased risk of CRC with increasing BMI, with the highest risk for right-sided colon cancer. An increased risk for colon cancer was also found in women with high BMI in early adulthood. Furthermore, women of all age groups appeared to have an increased risk of CRC death with higher BMI.

Valorization for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Agri-Food Value Chain.

This article defines the term valorization of biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) measures, as distinguished from their valuation, and underpins it with an assessment of private valorization examples along the agri-food value chain. Valorization incentivizes measures for promoting BES, while valuation refers to its quantification. Valuation can be a step of valorization but is not indispensable. In scientific literature, the terms valorization and valuation are often used interchangeably. In addition, there is a lack of research on private options versus conventional, public policy options. Therefore, we searched for private valorization options primarily in public sources (gray literature and websites). This led to the identification of four clusters (markets for voluntary services, labeling, and certification, environmental management/CSR, and tradable permits and quotas). Based on these clusters the options were assessed from a legal and systems dynamics perspective. In addition, the viability of selected valorization options in different future scenarios was examined. The analysis revealed a wide range of private valorization options, which in contrast to public policy options that focus almost entirely on the production stage, are spread across the agri-food value chain. Their suitability differs under different future scenarios, legal and systems conditions.

Cancer risk and survival according to body mass index in hepatobiliary malignancies: a nationwide registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the associations between BMI and cancer of the liver, bile ducts, and gallbladder. METHODS: A registry-based cohort study was performed by linking data from several national registries in Norway. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 1 723 692 individuals including 4768 hepatobiliary cancer cases during 55 743 509 person-years of follow-up. In men, we found increased risk of cancer per 5 kg/m2 BMI increase for hepatocellular carcinoma and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In women there was increased risk of extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer. Women with high BMI in early adulthood had increased risk of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Reduced cancer-specific survival was found for all hepatobiliary malignancies in women with overweight and obesity. In men, reduced survival was observed in individuals with obesity for all hepatobiliary cancers, except gallbladder cancer. Increased risk of cancer-death per 5 kg/m2 BMI increase was found for hepatocellular carcinoma, intra-, and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in women. For men, 5 kg/m2 BMI increase was positively associated with cancer-death from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. DISCUSSION: This study supports the notion of an increased risk of hepatobiliary cancers with increasing BMI, with sex and age variations. The findings also suggest a higher risk of cancer-death with increasing BMI.

International variation in oesophageal and gastric cancer survival 2012-2014: differences by histological subtype and stage at diagnosis (an ICBP SURVMARK-2 population-based study).

OBJECTIVE: To provide the first international comparison of oesophageal and gastric cancer survival by stage at diagnosis and histological subtype across high-income countries with similar access to healthcare. METHODS: As part of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project, data from 28 923 patients with oesophageal cancer and 25 946 patients with gastric cancer diagnosed during 2012-2014 from 14 cancer registries in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) were included. 1-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival were estimated by stage at diagnosis, histological subtype (oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)) and country. RESULTS: Oesophageal cancer survival was highest in Ireland and lowest in Canada at 1 (50.3% vs 41.3%, respectively) and 3 years (27.0% vs 19.2%) postdiagnosis. Survival from gastric cancer was highest in Australia and lowest in the UK, for both 1-year (55.2% vs 44.8%, respectively) and 3-year survival (33.7% vs 22.3%). Most patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer had regional or distant disease, with proportions ranging between 56% and 90% across countries. Stage-specific analyses showed that variation between countries was greatest for localised disease, where survival ranged between 66.6% in Australia and 83.2% in the UK for oesophageal cancer and between 75.5% in Australia and 94.3% in New Zealand for gastric cancer at 1-year postdiagnosis. While survival for OAC was generally higher than that for OSCC, disparities across countries were similar for both histological subtypes. CONCLUSION: Survival from oesophageal and gastric cancer varies across high-income countries including within stage groups, particularly for localised disease. Disparities can partly be explained by earlier diagnosis resulting in more favourable stage distributions, and distributions of histological subtypes of oesophageal cancer across countries. Yet, differences in treatment, and also in cancer registration practice and the use of different staging methods and systems, across countries may have impacted the comparisons. While primary prevention remains key, advancements in early detection research are promising and will likely allow for additional risk stratification and survival improvements in the future.

Risk factors and prognostic implications of diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission (emergency presentation): an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Greater understanding of international cancer survival differences is needed. We aimed to identify predictors and consequences of cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation in different international jurisdictions in six high-income countries. METHODS: Using a federated analysis model, in this cross-sectional population-based study, we analysed cancer registration and linked hospital admissions data from 14 jurisdictions in six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK), including patients with primary diagnosis of invasive oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer during study periods from Jan 1, 2012, to Dec 31, 2017. Data were collected on cancer site, age group, sex, year of diagnosis, and stage at diagnosis. Emergency presentation was defined as diagnosis of cancer within 30 days after an emergency hospital admission. Using logistic regression, we examined variables associated with emergency presentation and associations between emergency presentation and short-term mortality. We meta-analysed estimates across jurisdictions and explored jurisdiction-level associations between cancer survival and the percentage of patients diagnosed as emergencies. FINDINGS: In 857 068 patients across 14 jurisdictions, considering all of the eight cancer sites together, the percentage of diagnoses through emergency presentation ranged from 24·0% (9165 of 38 212 patients) to 42·5% (12 238 of 28 794 patients). There was consistently large variation in the percentage of emergency presentations by cancer site across jurisdictions. Pancreatic cancer diagnoses had the highest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (46·1% [30 972 of 67 173 patients]), with the jurisdictional range being 34·1% (1083 of 3172 patients) to 60·4% (1317 of 2182 patients). Rectal cancer had the lowest percentage of emergency presentations on average overall (12·1% [10 051 of 83 325 patients]), with a jurisdictional range of 9·1% (403 of 4438 patients) to 19·8% (643 of 3247 patients). Across the jurisdictions, older age (ie, 75-84 years and 85 years or older, compared with younger patients) and advanced stage at diagnosis compared with non-advanced stage were consistently associated with increased emergency presentation risk, with the percentage of emergency presentations being highest in the oldest age group (85 years or older) for 110 (98%) of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, and in the most advanced (distant spread) stage category for 98 (97%) of 101 jurisdiction-cancer site strata with available information. Across the jurisdictions, and despite heterogeneity in association size (I2=93%), emergency presenters consistently had substantially greater risk of 12-month mortality than non-emergency presenters (odds ratio >1·9 for 112 [100%] of 112 jurisdiction-cancer site strata, with the minimum lower bound of the related 95% CIs being 1·26). There were negative associations between jurisdiction-level percentage of emergency presentations and jurisdiction-level 1-year survival for colon, stomach, lung, liver, pancreatic, and ovarian cancer, with a 10% increase in percentage of emergency presentations in a jurisdiction being associated with a decrease in 1-year net survival of between 2·5% (95% CI 0·28-4·7) and 7·0% (1·2-13·0). INTERPRETATION: Internationally, notable proportions of patients with cancer are diagnosed through emergency presentation. Specific types of cancer, older age, and advanced stage at diagnosis are consistently associated with an increased risk of emergency presentation, which strongly predicts worse prognosis and probably contributes to international differences in cancer survival. Monitoring emergency presentations, and identifying and acting on contributing behavioural and health-care factors, is a global priority for cancer control. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute New South Wales; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; National Health Service England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; the Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.

Five ways to improve international comparisons of cancer survival: lessons learned from ICBP SURVMARK-2.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of population-based cancer survival between countries are important to benchmark the overall effectiveness of cancer management. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) Survmark-2 study aims to compare survival in seven high-income countries across eight cancer sites and explore reasons for the observed differences. A critical aspect in ensuring comparability in the reported survival estimates are similarities in practice across cancer registries. While ICBP Survmark-2 has shown these differences are unlikely to explain the observed differences in cancer-specific survival between countries, it is important to keep in mind potential biases linked to registry practice and understand their likely impact. METHODS: Based on experiences gained within ICBP Survmark-2, we have developed a set of recommendations that seek to optimally harmonise cancer registry datasets to improve future benchmarking exercises. RESULTS: Our recommendations stem from considering the impact on cancer survival estimates in five key areas: (1) the completeness of the registry and the availability of registration sources; (2) the inclusion of death certification as a source of identifying cases; (3) the specification of the date of incidence; (4) the approach to handling multiple primary tumours and (5) the quality of linkage of cases to the deaths register. CONCLUSION: These recommendations seek to improve comparability whilst maintaining the opportunity to understand and act upon international variations in outcomes among cancer patients.

International differences in lung cancer survival by sex, histological type and stage at diagnosis: an ICBP SURVMARK-2 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer has a poor prognosis that varies internationally when assessed by the two major histological subgroups (non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell (SCLC)). METHOD: 236 114 NSCLC and 43 167 SCLC cases diagnosed during 2010-2014 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK were included in the analyses. One-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival (NS) was estimated by sex, histological type, stage and country. RESULTS: One-year and 3-year NS was consistently higher for Canada and Norway, and lower for the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, irrespective of stage at diagnosis. Three-year NS for NSCLC ranged from 19.7% for the UK to 27.1% for Canada for men and was consistently higher for women (25.3% in the UK; 35.0% in Canada) partly because men were diagnosed at more advanced stages. International differences in survival for NSCLC were largest for regional stage and smallest at the advanced stage. For SCLC, 3-year NS also showed a clear female advantage with the highest being for Canada (13.8% for women; 9.1% for men) and Norway (12.8% for women; 9.7% for men). CONCLUSION: Distribution of stage at diagnosis among lung cancer cases differed by sex, histological subtype and country, which may partly explain observed survival differences. Yet, survival differences were also observed within stages, suggesting that quality of treatment, healthcare system factors and prevalence of comorbid conditions may also influence survival. Other possible explanations include differences in data collection practice, as well as differences in histological verification, staging and coding across jurisdictions.

Compliance with recommended cancer patient pathway timeframes and choice of treatment differed by cancer type and place of residence among cancer patients in Norway in 2015-2016.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patient pathways (CPPs) were implemented in Norway to reduce unnecessary waiting times, regional variations, and to increase the predictability of cancer care for the patients. This study aimed to determine if 70% of cancer patients started treatment within the recommended time frames, and to identify potential delays. METHODS: Patients registered with a colorectal, lung, breast, or prostate cancer diagnosis at the Cancer Registry of Norway in 2015-2016 were linked with the Norwegian Patient Registry and Statistics Norway. Adjusting for sociodemographic variables, multivariable quantile (median) regressions were used to examine the association between place of residence and median time to start of examination, treatment decision, and start of treatment. RESULTS: The study included 20 668 patients. The proportions of patients who went through the CPP within the recommended time frames were highest among colon (84%) and breast (76%) cancer patients who underwent surgery and lung cancer patients who started systemic anticancer treatment (76%), and lowest for prostate cancer patients who underwent surgery (43%). The time from treatment decision to start of treatment was the main source of delay for all cancers. Travelling outside the resident health trust prolonged waiting time and was associated with a reduced odds of receiving surgery and radiotherapy for lung and rectal cancer patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Achievement of national recommendations of the CCP times differed by cancer type and treatment. Identified bottlenecks in the pathway should be targeted to decrease waiting times. Further, CPP guidelines should be re-examined to determine their ongoing relevance.

Non-parametric estimation of reference adjusted, standardised probabilities of all-cause death and death due to cancer for population group comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring fair comparisons of cancer survival statistics across population groups requires careful consideration of differential competing mortality due to other causes, and adjusting for imbalances over groups in other prognostic covariates (e.g. age). This has typically been achieved using comparisons of age-standardised net survival, with age standardisation addressing covariate imbalance, and the net estimates removing differences in competing mortality from other causes. However, these estimates lack ease of interpretability. In this paper, we motivate an alternative non-parametric approach that uses a common rate of other cause mortality across groups to give reference-adjusted estimates of the all-cause and cause-specific crude probability of death in contrast to solely reporting net survival estimates. METHODS: We develop the methodology for a non-parametric equivalent of standardised and reference adjusted crude probabilities of death, building on the estimation of non-parametric crude probabilities of death. We illustrate the approach using regional comparisons of survival following a diagnosis of rectal cancer for men in England. We standardise to the covariate distribution and other cause mortality of England as a whole to offer comparability, but with close approximation to the observed all-cause region-specific mortality. RESULTS: The approach gives comparable estimates to observed crude probabilities of death, but allows direct comparison across population groups with different covariate profiles and competing mortality patterns. In our illustrative example, we show that regional variations in survival following a diagnosis of rectal cancer persist even after accounting for the variation in deprivation, age at diagnosis and other cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The methodological approach of using standardised and reference adjusted metrics offers an appealing approach for future cancer survival comparison studies and routinely published cancer statistics. Our non-parametric estimation approach through the use of weighting offers the ability to estimate comparable survival estimates without the need for statistical modelling.

International trends in oesophageal cancer survival by histological subtype between 1995 and 2014.

INTRODUCTION: Survival from oesophageal cancer remains poor, even across high-income countries. Ongoing changes in the epidemiology of the disease highlight the need for survival assessments by its two main histological subtypes, adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). METHODS: The ICBP SURVMARK-2 project, a platform for international comparisons of cancer survival, collected cases of oesophageal cancer diagnosed 1995 to 2014, followed until 31st December 2015, from cancer registries covering seven participating countries with similar access to healthcare (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK). 1-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival alongside incidence rates were calculated by country, subtype, sex, age group and period of diagnosis. RESULTS: 111 894 cases of AC and 73 408 cases of SCC were included in the analysis. Marked improvements in survival were observed over the 20-year period in each country, particularly for AC, younger age groups and 1 year after diagnosis. Survival was consistently higher for both subtypes in Australia and Ireland followed by Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, the UK and Canada. During 2010 to 2014, survival was higher for AC compared with SCC, with 1-year survival ranging from 46.9% (Canada) to 54.4% (Ireland) for AC and 39.6% (Denmark) to 53.1% (Australia) for SCC. CONCLUSION: Marked improvements in both oesophageal AC and SCC survival suggest advances in treatment. Less marked improvements 3 years after diagnosis, among older age groups and patients with SCC, highlight the need for further advances in early detection and treatment of oesophageal cancer alongside primary prevention to reduce the overall burden from the disease.

Colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries 2010-2014: variation by age and stage at diagnosis (the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project).

OBJECTIVES: As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) SURVMARK-2 project, we provide the most recent estimates of colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries by age and stage at diagnosis. METHODS: Data from 386 870 patients diagnosed during 2010-2014 from 19 cancer registries in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) were analysed. 1-year and 5-year net survival from colon and rectal cancer were estimated by stage at diagnosis, age and country, RESULTS: (One1-year) and 5-year net survival varied between (77.1% and 87.5%) 59.1% and 70.9% and (84.8% and 90.0%) 61.6% and 70.9% for colon and rectal cancer, respectively. Survival was consistently higher in Australia, Canada and Norway, with smaller proportions of patients with metastatic disease in Canada and Australia. International differences in (1-year) and 5-year survival were most pronounced for regional and distant colon cancer ranging between (86.0% and 94.1%) 62.5% and 77.5% and (40.7% and 56.4%) 8.0% and 17.3%, respectively. Similar patterns were observed for rectal cancer. Stage distribution of colon and rectal cancers by age varied across countries with marked survival differences for patients with metastatic disease and diagnosed at older ages (irrespective of stage). CONCLUSIONS: Survival disparities for colon and rectal cancer across high-income countries are likely explained by earlier diagnosis in some countries and differences in treatment for regional and distant disease, as well as older age at diagnosis. Differences in cancer registration practice and different staging systems across countries may have impacted the comparisons.

Comparison of liver cancer incidence and survival by subtypes across seven high-income countries.

International comparison of liver cancer survival has been hampered due to varying standards and degrees for morphological verification and differences in coding practices. This article aims to compare liver cancer survival across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership's (ICBP) jurisdictions whilst trying to ensure that the estimates are comparable through a range of sensitivity analyses. Liver cancer incidence data from 21 jurisdictions in 7 countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) were obtained from population-based registries for 1995-2014. Cases were categorised based on histological classification, age-groups, basis of diagnosis and calendar period. Age-standardised incidence rate (ASR) per 100 000 and net survival at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis were estimated. Liver cancer incidence rates increased over time across all ICBP jurisdictions, particularly for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with the largest relative increase in the United Kingdom, increasing from 1.3 to 4.4 per 100 000 person-years between 1995 and 2014. Australia had the highest age-standardised 1-year and 3-year net survival for all liver cancers combined (48.7% and 28.1%, respectively) in the most recent calendar period, which was still true for morphologically verified tumours when making restrictions to ensure consistent coding and classification. Survival from liver cancers is poor in all countries. The incidence of HCC is increasing alongside the proportion of nonmicroscopically verified cases over time. Survival estimates for all liver tumours combined should be interpreted in this context. Care is needed to ensure that international comparisons are performed on appropriately comparable patients, with careful consideration of coding practice variations.

Age disparities in stage-specific colon cancer survival across seven countries: An International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership SURVMARK-2 population-based study.

We sought to understand the role of stage at diagnosis in observed age disparities in colon cancer survival among people aged 50 to 99 years using population-based cancer registry data from seven high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. We used colon cancer incidence data for the period 2010 to 2014. We estimated the 3-year net survival, as well as the 3-year net survival conditional on surviving at least 6 months and 1 year after diagnosis, by country and stage at diagnosis (categorised as localised, regional or distant) using flexible parametric excess hazard regression models. In all countries, increasing age was associated with lower net survival. For example, 3-year net survival (95% confidence interval) was 81% (80-82) for 50 to 64 year olds and 58% (56-60) for 85 to 99 year olds in Australia, and 74% (73-74) and 39% (39-40) in the United Kingdom, respectively. Those with distant stage colon cancer had the largest difference in colon cancer survival between the youngest and the oldest patients. Excess mortality for the oldest patients with localised or regional cancers was observed during the first 6 months after diagnosis. Older patients diagnosed with localised (and in some countries regional) stage colon cancer who survived 6 months after diagnosis experienced the same survival as their younger counterparts. Further studies examining other prognostic clinical factors such as comorbidities and treatment, and socioeconomic factors are warranted to gain further understanding of the age disparities in colon cancer survival.

Exploring the impact of cancer registry completeness on international cancer survival differences: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Data from population-based cancer registries are often used to compare cancer survival between countries or regions. The ICBP SURVMARK-2 study is an international partnership aiming to quantify and explore the reasons behind survival differences across high-income countries. However, the magnitude and relevance of differences in cancer survival between countries have been questioned, as it is argued that observed survival variations may be explained, at least in part, by differences in cancer registration practice, completeness and the availability and quality of the respective data sources. METHODS: As part of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 study, we used a simulation approach to better understand how differences in completeness, the characteristics of those missed and inclusion of cases found from death certificates can impact on cancer survival estimates. RESULTS: Bias in 1- and 5-year net survival estimates for 216 simulated scenarios is presented. Out of the investigated factors, the proportion of cases not registered through sources other than death certificates, had the largest impact on survival estimates. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the differences in registration practice between participating countries could in our most extreme scenarios explain only a part of the largest observed differences in cancer survival.