Projection du fardeau du cancer au Canada en 2024.

CONTEXTE: Les données de surveillance du cancer sont essentielles pour mieux comprendre les lacunes et les progrès réalisés dans la lutte contre le cancer. Nous avons cherché à résumer les répercussions prévues du cancer au Canada en 2024, en effectuant des projections sur les nouveaux cas de cancer et les décès par cancer, par sexe et par province ou territoire, pour tous les âges confondus. MÉTHODES: Nous avons obtenu les données sur les nouveaux cas de cancer (c.-à-d., l'incidence, 1984­2019) et les décès par cancer (c.-à-d., la mortalité, 1984­2020) du Registre canadien du cancer et de la Base canadienne de données de l'état civil ­ Décès, respectivement. Nous avons projeté les chiffres et les taux d'incidence du cancer et de mortalité jusqu'en 2024 pour 23 types de cancer, par sexe et par province ou territoire. Nous avons calculé des taux normalisés selon l'âge au moyen de données de la population type canadienne de 2011. RÉSULTATS: En 2024, les nombres de nouveaux cas de cancer et de décès causés par le cancer devraient atteindre 247 100 et 88 100, respectivement. Le taux d'incidence normalisé selon l'âge (TINA) et le taux de mortalité normalisé selon l'âge (TMNA) devraient diminuer légèrement par rapport aux années précédentes, tant chez les hommes que chez les femmes, avec des taux plus élevés chez les hommes (TINA de 562,2 pour 100 000, et TMNA de 209,6 pour 100 000 chez les hommes; TINA de 495,9 pour 100 000 et TMNA de 152,8 pour 100 000 chez les femmes). Les TINA et les TMNA de plusieurs cancers courants devraient continuer à diminuer (p. ex., cancer du poumon, cancer colorectal et cancer de la prostate), tandis que ceux de plusieurs autres cancers devraient augmenter (p. ex., cancer du foie et des voies biliaires intrahépatiques, cancer du rein, mélanome et lymphome non hodgkinien). INTERPRÉTATION: Bien que l'incidence globale du cancer et la mortalité connexe sont en déclin, il devrait y avoir une augmentation des nouveaux cas et des décès au Canada en 2024, en grande partie en raison de la croissance et du vieillissement de la population. Les efforts en matière de prévention, de dépistage et de traitement ont atténué les répercussions de certains cancers, mais ces projections à court terme soulignent l'effet potentiel du cancer sur les gens et les systèmes de soins de santé au Canada.

Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2024.

BACKGROUND: Cancer surveillance data are essential to help understand where gaps exist and progress is being made in cancer control. We sought to summarize the expected impact of cancer in Canada in 2024, with projections of new cancer cases and deaths from cancer by sex and province or territory for all ages combined. METHODS: We obtained data on new cancer cases (i.e., incidence, 1984-2019) and deaths from cancer (i.e., mortality, 1984-2020) from the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Vital Statistics Death Database, respectively. We projected cancer incidence and mortality counts and rates to 2024 for 23 types of cancer, overall, by sex, and by province or territory. We calculated age-standardized rates using data from the 2011 Canadian standard population. RESULTS: In 2024, the number of new cancer cases and deaths from cancer are expected to reach 247 100 and 88 100, respectively. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and mortality rate (ASMR) are projected to decrease slightly from previous years for both males and females, with higher rates among males (ASIR 562.2 per 100 000 and ASMR 209.6 per 100 000 among males; ASIR 495.9 per 100 000 and ASMR 152.8 per 100 000 among females). The ASIRs and ASMRs of several common cancers are projected to continue to decrease (i.e., lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer), while those of several others are projected to increase (i.e., liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer, kidney cancer, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma). INTERPRETATION: Although the overall incidence of cancer and associated mortality are declining, new cases and deaths in Canada are expected to increase in 2024, largely because of the growing and aging population. Efforts in prevention, screening, and treatment have reduced the impact of some cancers, but these short-term projections highlight the potential effect of cancer on people and health care systems in Canada.

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).

Arsenic in drinking water and lung cancer: A systematic review of 35 years of evidence.

The association between higher arsenic concentrations in drinking water and lung cancer is well-established. However, the risk associated with lower levels of arsenic exposure remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the evidence on the relationship between exposure to arsenic in drinking water and lung cancer outcomes as measured over a broad range of exposures, including lower levels. A total of 51 studies were included in the review and 15 met criteria for inclusion in meta-analysis. Risk estimates for lung cancer incidence and mortality were pooled and analyzed separately using Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models with a Gaussian observation submodel for log(Risk), computed using the "brms" R package. For lung cancer incidence, the predicted posterior mean relative risks (RRs) at arsenic concentrations of 10, 50 and 150 µg/L were 1.11 (0.86-1.43), 1.67 (1.27-2.17) and 2.21 (1.61-3.02), respectively, with posterior probabilities of 79%, 100% and 100%, respectively, for the RRs to be >1. The posterior mean mortality ratios at 20, 50 and 150 µg/L were 1.22 (0.83-1.78), 2.10 (1.62-2.71) and 2.41 (1.88-3.08), respectively, with posterior probabilities being above 80%. In addition to observing the dose-response relationship, these findings demonstrate that individuals exposed to low to moderate levels of arsenic (<150 µg/L) were at an elevated risk of developing or dying from lung cancer. Given the widespread exposure to lower levels of arsenic, there is an urgent need for vigilance and potential revisions to regulatory guidelines to protect people from the cancer risks associated with arsenic exposure.

The Nova Scotia Community Cancer Matrix: A geospatial tool to support cancer prevention.

Globally, cancer is a leading cause of death and morbidity and its burden is increasing worldwide. It is established that medical approaches alone will not solve this cancer crisis. Moreover, while cancer treatment can be effective, it is costly and access to treatment and health care is vastly inequitable. However, almost 50% of cancers are caused by potentially avoidable risk factors and are thus preventable. Cancer prevention represents the most cost-effective, feasible and sustainable pathway towards global cancer control. While much is known about cancer risk factors, prevention programs often lack consideration of how place impacts cancer risk over time. Maximizing cancer prevention investment requires an understanding of the geographic context for why some people develop cancer while others do not. Data on how community and individual level risk factors interact is therefore required. The Nova Scotia Community Cancer Matrix (NS-Matrix) study was established in Nova Scotia (NS), a small province in Eastern Canada with a population of 1 million. The study integrates small-area profiles of cancer incidence with cancer risk factors and socioeconomic conditions, to inform locally relevant and equitable cancer prevention strategies. The NS-Matrix Study includes over 99,000 incident cancers diagnosed in NS between 2001 and 2017, georeferenced to small-area communities. In this analysis we used Bayesian inference to identify communities with high and low risk for lung and bladder cancer: two highly preventable cancers with rates in NS exceeding the Canadian average, and for which key risk factors are high. We report significant spatial heterogeneity in lung and bladder cancer risk. The identification of spatial disparities relating to a community's socioeconomic profile and other spatially varying factors, such as environmental exposures, can inform prevention. Adopting Bayesian spatial analysis methods and utilizing high quality cancer registry data provides a model to support geographically-focused cancer prevention efforts, tailored to local community needs.

Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Risk of Lung, Breast, and Urinary Tract Cancer in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the association of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) with the incidence of lung, breast, and urinary tract cancer in Halifax, Nova Scotia. METHODS: Our case-control study included 2315 cancers and 8501 age-sex-matched controls. Land-use regression was used to estimate TRAP concentrations. Logistic regression was used to assess cancer risk in relation to TRAP, adjusting for community social and material deprivation. RESULTS: There was no association between the risk of lung, breast, or urinary tract cancer in relation to TRAP. Lung cancer risk was significantly increased in the most deprived communities, whereas breast cancer risk was highest in the least deprived communities. CONCLUSIONS: In a city characterized by low levels of ambient air pollution, there was no evidence of a linear increased lung, breast, or urinary tract cancer risk in relation to TRAP.

Five-year cancer survival by stage at diagnosis in Canada.

Background: Cancer survival estimates provide insights into the effectiveness of early detection and treatment. The stage of cancer at diagnosis is an important determinant of survival, reflecting the extent and spread at the time of disease detection. This work provides stage-specific, five-year survival results not previously available for Canada. Data and methods: Data reflect the population-based Canadian Cancer Registry death-linked analytic file covering the period from 2010 to 2017. The stage at diagnosis was determined by the Collaborative Stage Data Collection System. Five-year net survival (NS) estimates for Canada excluding Quebec were derived using the Pohar Perme estimator for the five most commonly diagnosed cancers. Results: Except for prostate cancer, NS decreased monotonically with increased stage at diagnosis. For example, female breast cancer NS estimates were 100% (stage I), 92% (stage II), 74% (stage III) and 23% (stage IV). Apart from lung cancer, stage I NS exceeded 90% for all cancers studied. The largest sex-specific difference in NS was for lung cancer stage I (female 66%; male 56%). Stage-specific NS generally decreased with age, particularly for early-stage lung cancer. Between the 2010-to-2012 and 2015-to-2017 periods, NS improved among stage IV prostate, female breast and lung cancer cases, as well as for stage I and III lung cancer cases; however, it did not improve at any stage for colon or rectal cancer cases. Interpretation: The work highlights the importance of detecting cancer early, when treatment is most effective. It demonstrates some progress in stage-specific survival among top cancers in Canada and offers data to inform health policy, including screening, and clinical decisions regarding cancer treatment.

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.

Global survival trends for brain tumors, by histology: analysis of individual records for 556,237 adults diagnosed in 59 countries during 2000-2014 (CONCORD-3).

BACKGROUND: Survival is a key metric of the effectiveness of a health system in managing cancer. We set out to provide a comprehensive examination of worldwide variation and trends in survival from brain tumors in adults, by histology. METHODS: We analyzed individual data for adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with a brain tumor (ICD-O-3 topography code C71) during 2000-2014, regardless of tumor behavior. Data underwent a 3-phase quality control as part of CONCORD-3. We estimated net survival for 11 histology groups, using the unbiased nonparametric Pohar Perme estimator. RESULTS: The study included 556,237 adults. In 2010-2014, the global range in age-standardized 5-year net survival for the most common sub-types was broad: in the range 20%-38% for diffuse and anaplastic astrocytoma, from 4% to 17% for glioblastoma, and between 32% and 69% for oligodendroglioma. For patients with glioblastoma, the largest gains in survival occurred between 2000-2004 and 2005-2009. These improvements were more noticeable among adults diagnosed aged 40-70 years than among younger adults. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this study provides the largest account to date of global trends in population-based survival for brain tumors by histology in adults. We have highlighted remarkable gains in 5-year survival from glioblastoma since 2005, providing large-scale empirical evidence on the uptake of chemoradiation at population level. Worldwide, survival improvements have been extensive, but some countries still lag behind. Our findings may help clinicians involved in national and international tumor pathway boards to promote initiatives aimed at more extensive implementation of clinical guidelines.

Update on cancer incidence trends in Canada, 1984 to 2017. / Le point sur les tendances de l'incidence du cancer au Canada (1984-2017).

This paper highlights findings on cancer trends from the Canadian Cancer Statistics 2021 report. Trends were measured using annual percent change (APC) of age-standardized incidence rates. Overall, cancer incidence rates are declining (-1.1%) but the findings are specific to the type of cancer and patient sex. For example, in males, the largest decreases per year were for prostate (-4.4%), colorectal (-4.3%), lung (-3.8%), leukemia (-2.6%) and thyroid (-2.4%) cancers. In females, the largest decreases were for thyroid (-5.4%), colorectal (-3.4%) and ovarian (-3.1%) cancers.

Overall, cancer incidence is declining at a rate of −1.1% per year. In males, the two largest decreases were for prostate (−4.4% per year) and colorectal (−4.3% per year) cancer. In females, they were for thyroid (−5.4% per year) and colorectal (−3.4% per year) cancer. Melanoma (males: 2.2% per year; females: 2.0% per year) and multiple myeloma (males: 2.5% per year; females: 1.6% per year) rates are increasing. Cancer trends in Canada are dynamic and type-specific. The decreases for prostate and thyroid cancer underscore the importance of updating testing practices based on best evidence.

Dans l'ensemble, l'incidence du cancer diminue à un taux de −1,1 % par année. Les deux plus fortes baisses ont été observées chez les hommes pour le cancer de la prostate (−4,4 % par année) et le cancer colorectal (−4,3 % par année) et, chez les femmes, pour le cancer de la thyroïde (−5,4 % par année) et le cancer colorectal (−3,4 % par année). Les taux de mélanome sont en hausse (hommes : 2,2 % par année; femmes : 2,0 % par année) ainsi que ceux de myélome multiple (hommes : 2,5 % par année; femmes : 1,6 % par année). Les tendances en matière de cancer au Canada sont dynamiques et elles dépendent de chaque type de cancer. La diminution de l'incidence du cancer de la prostate et du cancer de la thyroïde souligne l'importance de mettre à jour les pratiques de dépistage à partir des meilleures données probantes.

Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2022.

BACKGROUND: Regular cancer surveillance is crucial for understanding where progress is being made and where more must be done. We sought to provide an overview of the expected burden of cancer in Canada in 2022. METHODS: We obtained data on new cancer incidence from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System (1984-1991) and Canadian Cancer Registry (1992-2018). Mortality data (1984-2019) were obtained from the Canadian Vital Statistics - Death Database. We projected cancer incidence and mortality counts and rates to 2022 for 22 cancer types by sex and province or territory. Rates were age standardized to the 2011 Canadian standard population. RESULTS: An estimated 233 900 new cancer cases and 85 100 cancer deaths are expected in Canada in 2022. We expect the most commonly diagnosed cancers to be lung overall (30 000), breast in females (28 600) and prostate in males (24 600). We also expect lung cancer to be the leading cause of cancer death, accounting for 24.3% of all cancer deaths, followed by colorectal (11.0%), pancreatic (6.7%) and breast cancers (6.5%). Incidence and mortality rates are generally expected to be higher in the eastern provinces of Canada than the western provinces. INTERPRETATION: Although overall cancer rates are declining, the number of cases and deaths continues to climb, owing to population growth and the aging population. The projected high burden of lung cancer indicates a need for increased tobacco control and improvements in early detection and treatment. Success in breast and colorectal cancer screening and treatment likely account for the continued decline in their burden. The limited progress in early detection and new treatments for pancreatic cancer explains why it is expected to be the third leading cause of cancer death in Canada.

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.

Worldwide trends in population-based survival for children, adolescents, and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia, by subtype, during 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual data from 258 cancer registries in 61 countries.

BACKGROUND: Leukaemias comprise a heterogenous group of haematological malignancies. In CONCORD-3, we analysed data for children (aged 0-14 years) and adults (aged 15-99 years) diagnosed with a haematological malignancy during 2000-14 in 61 countries. Here, we aimed to examine worldwide trends in survival from leukaemia, by age and morphology, in young patients (aged 0-24 years). METHODS: We analysed data from 258 population-based cancer registries in 61 countries participating in CONCORD-3 that submitted data on patients diagnosed with leukaemia. We grouped patients by age as children (0-14 years), adolescents (15-19 years), and young adults (20-24 years). We categorised leukaemia subtypes according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC-3), updated with International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third edition (ICD-O-3) codes. We estimated 5-year net survival by age and morphology, with 95% CIs, using the non-parametric Pohar-Perme estimator. To control for background mortality, we used life tables by country or region, single year of age, single calendar year and sex, and, where possible, by race or ethnicity. All-age survival estimates were standardised to the marginal distribution of young people with leukaemia included in the analysis. FINDINGS: 164 563 young people were included in this analysis: 121 328 (73·7%) children, 22 963 (14·0%) adolescents, and 20 272 (12·3%) young adults. In 2010-14, the most common subtypes were lymphoid leukaemia (28 205 [68·2%] patients) and acute myeloid leukaemia (7863 [19·0%] patients). Age-standardised 5-year net survival in children, adolescents, and young adults for all leukaemias combined during 2010-14 varied widely, ranging from 46% in Mexico to more than 85% in Canada, Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Australia. Individuals with lymphoid leukaemia had better age-standardised survival (from 43% in Ecuador to ≥80% in parts of Europe, North America, Oceania, and Asia) than those with acute myeloid leukaemia (from 32% in Peru to ≥70% in most high-income countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania). Throughout 2000-14, survival from all leukaemias combined remained consistently higher for children than adolescents and young adults, and minimal improvement was seen for adolescents and young adults in most countries. INTERPRETATION: This study offers the first worldwide picture of population-based survival from leukaemia in children, adolescents, and young adults. Adolescents and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia continue to have lower survival than children. Trends in survival from leukaemia for adolescents and young adults are important indicators of the quality of cancer management in this age group. FUNDING: Children with Cancer UK, the Institut National du Cancer, La Ligue Contre le Cancer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Swiss Re, Swiss Cancer Research foundation, Swiss Cancer League, Rossy Family Foundation, US National Cancer Institute, and the American Cancer Society.

Pancreatic cancer survival by stage and age in seven high-income countries (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The global burden of pancreatic cancer has steadily increased, while the prognosis after pancreatic cancer diagnosis remains poor. This study aims to compare the stage- and age-specific pancreatic cancer net survival (NS) for seven high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and United Kingdom. METHODS: The study included over 35,000 pancreatic cancer cases diagnosed during 2012-2014, followed through 31 December 2015. The stage- and age-specific NS were calculated using the Pohar-Perme estimator. RESULTS: Pancreatic cancer survival estimates were low across all 7 countries, with 1-year NS ranging from 21.1% in New Zealand to 30.9% in Australia, and 3-year NS from 6.6% in the UK to 10.9% in Australia. Most pancreatic cancers were diagnosed with distant stage, ranging from 53.9% in Ireland to 83.3% in New Zealand. While survival differences were evident between countries across all stage categories at one year after diagnosis, this survival advantage diminished, particularly in cases with distant stage. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the importance of stage and age at diagnosis in pancreatic cancer survival. Although progress has been made in improving pancreatic cancer prognosis, the disease is highly fatal and will remain so without major breakthroughs in the early diagnosis and management.

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.

The impact of reclassifying cancers of unspecified histology on international differences in survival for small cell and non-small cell lung cancer (ICBP SurvMark-2 project).

Survival from lung cancer remains low, yet is the most common cancer diagnosed worldwide. With survival contrasting between the main histological groupings, small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), it is important to assess the extent that geographical differences could be from varying proportions of cancers with unspecified histology across countries. Lung cancer cases diagnosed 2010-2014, followed until 31 December 2015 were provided by cancer registries from seven countries for the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project. Multiple imputation was used to reassign cases with unspecified histology into SCLC, NSCLC and other. One-year and three-year age-standardised net survival were estimated by histology, sex, age group and country. In all, 404 617 lung cancer cases were included, of which 47 533 (11.7%) and 262 040 (64.8%) were SCLC and NSCLC. The proportion of unspecified cases varied, from 11.2% (Denmark) to 29.0% (The United Kingdom). After imputation with unspecified histology, survival variations remained: 1-year SCLC survival ranged from 28.0% (New Zealand) to 35.6% (Australia) NSCLC survival from 39.4% (The United Kingdom) to 49.5% (Australia). The largest survival change after imputation was for 1-year NSCLC (4.9 percentage point decrease). Similar variations were observed for 3-year survival. The oldest age group had lowest survival and largest decline after imputation. International variations in SCLC and NSCLC survival are only partially attributable to differences in the distribution of unspecified histology. While it is important that registries and clinicians aim to improve completeness in classifying cancers, it is likely that other factors play a larger role, including underlying risk factors, stage, comorbidity and care management which warrants investigation.

The impact of excluding or including Death Certificate Initiated (DCI) cases on estimated cancer survival: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer registries strive to cover all cancer cases diagnosed within the population, but some cases will always be missed and no register is 100 % complete. Many cancer registries use death certificates to identify additional cases not captured through other routine sources, to hopefully add a large proportion of the missed cases. Cases notified through this route, who would not have been captured without death certificate information, are referred to as Death Certificate Initiated (DCI) cases. Inclusion of DCI cases in cancer registries increases completeness and is important for estimating cancer incidence. However, inclusion of DCI cases will generally lead to biased estimates of cancer survival, but the same is often also true if excluding DCI cases. Missed cases are probably not a random sample of all cancer cases, but rather cases with poor prognosis. Further, DCI cases have poorer prognosis than missed cases in general, since they have all died with cancer mentioned on the death certificates. METHODS: We performed a simulation study to estimate the impact of including or excluding DCI cases on cancer survival estimates, under different scenarios. RESULTS: We demonstrated that including DCI cases underestimates survival. The exclusion of DCI cases gives unbiased survival estimates if missed cases are a random sample of all cancer cases, while survival is overestimated if these have poorer prognosis. CONCLUSION: In our most extreme scenarios, with 25 % of cases initially missed, the usual practice of including DCI cases underestimated 5-year survival by at most 3 percentage points.

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.

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.