25 year trends in cancer incidence and mortality among adults aged 35-69 years in the UK, 1993-2018: retrospective secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine and interpret trends in UK cancer incidence and mortality for all cancers combined and for the most common cancer sites in adults aged 35-69 years. DESIGN: Retrospective secondary data analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cancer registration data, cancer mortality and national population data from the Office for National Statistics, Public Health Wales, Public Health Scotland, Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, NHS England, and the General Register Office for Northern Ireland. SETTING: 23 cancer sites were included in the analysis in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 35-69 years diagnosed with or who died from cancer between 1993 to 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in cancer incidence and mortality age standardised rates over time. RESULTS: The number of cancer cases in this age range rose by 57% for men (from 55 014 cases registered in 1993 to 86 297 in 2018) and by 48% for women (60 187 to 88 970) with age standardised rates showing average annual increases of 0.8% in both sexes. The increase in incidence was predominantly driven by increases in prostate (male) and breast (female) cancers. Without these two sites, all cancer trends in age standardised incidence rates were relatively stable. Trends for a small number of less common cancers showed concerning increases in incidence rates, for example, in melanoma skin, liver, oral, and kidney cancers. The number of cancer deaths decreased over the 25 year period, by 20% in men (from 32 878 to 26 322) and 17% in women (28 516 to 23 719); age standardised mortality rates reduced for all cancers combined by 37% in men (-2.0% per year) and 33% in women (-1.6% per year). The largest decreases in mortality were noted for stomach, mesothelioma, and bladder cancers in men and stomach and cervical cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women. Most incidence and mortality changes were statistically significant even when the size of change was relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer mortality had a substantial reduction during the past 25 years in both men and women aged 35-69 years. This decline is likely a reflection of the successes in cancer prevention (eg, smoking prevention policies and cessation programmes), earlier detection (eg, screening programmes) and improved diagnostic tests, and more effective treatment. By contrast, increased prevalence of non-smoking risk factors are the likely cause of the observed increased incidence for a small number of specific cancers. This analysis also provides a benchmark for the following decade, which will include the impact of covid-19 on cancer incidence and outcomes.

Years of life lost due to cancer in the United Kingdom from 1988 to 2017.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the application of years of life lost (YLL) in routine cancer statistics using cancer mortality data from 1988 to 2017. METHODS: Cancer mortality data for 17 cancers and all cancers in the UK from 1988 to 2017 were provided by the UK Association of Cancer Registries by sex, 5-year age group, and year. YLL, age-standardised YLL rate (ASYR) and age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) were estimated. RESULTS: The annual average YLL due to cancer, in the time periods 1988-1992 and 2013-2017, were about 2.2 and 2.3 million years, corresponding to 4510 and 3823 ASYR per 100,000 years, respectively. During 2013-2017, the largest number of YLL occurred in lung, bowel and breast cancer. YLL by age groups for all cancers showed a peak between 60-64 and 75-79. The relative contributions to incidence, mortality, and YLL differ between cancers. For instance, pancreas (in women and men) made up a smaller proportion of incidence (3%) but bigger proportion of mortality (6 and 5%) and YLL (5 and 6%), whereas prostate cancer (26% of incidence) contributed 13% mortality and 9% YLL. CONCLUSION: YLL is a useful measure of the impact different cancers have on society and puts a higher weight on cancer deaths in younger individuals.

Estimating surgery, radiotherapy and systemic anti-cancer therapy treatment costs for cancer patients by stage at diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The increasing burden of cancer has economic implications for the healthcare system in England. However, there is limited evidence on the cost of cancer treatment. We calculated the costs of initial cancer treatment (resection, radiotherapy, systemic anti-cancer therapy [SACT]) based on stage at diagnosis. METHODS: Data from England's National Cancer Registration Dataset were matched to English Hospital, Radiotherapy and SACT data for breast, lung, prostate, colon and rectal cancers diagnosed between 2016 and 2018. Treatment data were matched to National Schedule of Reference Costs data to calculate the cost of each treatment event. RESULTS: Breast, colon and rectal cancers treated with resection, radiotherapy or SACT had increasing costs with later stage at diagnosis; costs for lung and prostate cancers were lower at stages 1 and 4 compared to stages 2 and 3. In general, surgery and SACT were the most expensive treatments. Radiotherapy and SACT costs showed little change across stages 1-3; radiotherapy costs decreased in stage 4, while SACT costs increased. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis estimates initial treatment costs by stage based on observed data. Future research can build on this to provide more comprehensive costings associated with cancer; this is important for future planning of cancer services.

Relationship between ethnicity and stage at diagnosis in England: a national analysis of six cancer sites.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer stage at diagnosis is a determinant of treatment options and survival. Previous research has shown differences in barriers to presentation with cancer between ethnic groups. The completeness and quality of cancer stage and ethnicity data has improved markedly over recent years in England, allowing for comparison of stage distributions at diagnosis between ethnic groups. This study aimed to assess relationships between ethnic group and two outcomes: unknown stage cancer and late stage (stages 3 and 4) cancer, after adjustment for confounders. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective secondary data analysis using data from NHS Digital's National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service and Hospital Episode Statistics records from 2012 to 2016. PARTICIPANTS: This study analysed newly diagnosed breast, colon, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), ovary, prostate and uterine cancers in white British, Caribbean, African, Chinese and Asian patients aged 15-99 in England. RESULTS: Caribbean, African and Asian women with breast or ovarian cancer, Caribbean and African women with uterine or colon cancer, Caribbean women with NSCLC and Caribbean men with colon cancer had increased odds of late-stage disease at diagnosis compared with the white British cohort. In contrast, Caribbean and African men with prostate cancer had decreased odds of late-stage cancer. Where stage was known, there were variations in late-stage cancer by ethnic group. CONCLUSIONS: Low symptom awareness and barriers to presentation can cause delays, resulting in later stage diagnosis. Targeted intervention campaigns to help raise awareness of cancer signs and symptoms and the benefits of early diagnosis, along with removing barriers to appropriate referrals, could help to improve these inequalities.

Imaging in patients with glioblastoma: A national cohort study.

Background: Glioblastoma is the most common malignant brain tumor in adults and has a poor prognosis. This cohort of patients is diverse and imaging is vital to formulate treatment plans. Despite this, there is relatively little data on patterns of use of imaging and imaging workload in routine practice. Methods: We examined imaging patterns for all patients aged 15-99 years resident in England who were diagnosed with a glioblastoma between 1st January 2013 and 31st December 2014. Patients without imaging and death-certificate-only registrations were excluded. Results: The analytical cohort contained 4,307 patients. There was no significant variation in pre- or postdiagnostic imaging practice by sex or deprivation quintile. Postdiagnostic imaging practice was varied. In the group of patients who were treated most aggressively (surgical debulking and chemoradiation) and were MRI compatible, only 51% had a postoperative MRI within 72 hours of surgery. In patients undergoing surgery who subsequently received radiotherapy, only 61% had a postsurgery and preradiotherapy MRI. Conclusions: Prediagnostic imaging practice is uniform. Postdiagnostic imaging practice was variable. With increasing evidence and clearer recommendations regarding debulking surgery and planning radiotherapy imaging, the reason for this is unclear and will form the basis of further work.

Socio-economic deprivation and cancer incidence in England: Quantifying the role of smoking.

BACKGROUND: More deprived populations typically experience higher cancer incidence rates and smoking prevalence compared to less deprived populations. We calculated the proportion of cancer cases attributable to smoking by socio-economic deprivation in England and estimated the impact smoking has on the deprivation gap for cancer incidence. METHODS: Data for cancer incidence (2013-2017), smoking prevalence (2003-2007) and population estimates (2013-2017) were split by sex, age-group and deprivation quintile. Relative risk estimates from meta-analyses were used to estimate the population attributable fraction (PAF) for 15 cancer types associated with smoking. The deprivation gap was calculated using age-specific incidence rates by deprivation quintile. RESULTS: Smoking-related cancer PAFs in England are 2.2 times larger in the most deprived quintile compared to the least deprived quintile (from 9.7% to 21.1%). If everyone had the same smoking prevalence as the least deprived quintile, 20% of the deprivation gap in cancer incidence could have been prevented. If nobody smoked, 61% of the deprivation gap could have been prevented. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the deprivation gap in cancer incidence could have been prevented in England between 2013-2017 if nobody had smoked. Policy makers should ensure that tobacco control policies reduce overall smoking prevalence by tackling smoking inequalities.

Differences in cancer incidence by broad ethnic group in England, 2013-2017.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence variation between population groups can inform public health and cancer services. Previous studies have shown cancer incidence rates vary by ethnic group in England. Since their publication, the completeness of ethnicity recording in cancer data has improved, and relevant inequalities (e.g. risk factor prevalence and healthcare access) may have changed. METHODS: Age-standardised incidence rates were calculated for Asian, Black, Mixed/Multiple and White ethnic groups in England in 2013-2017, using almost 3 million diagnoses across 31 cancer sites. Rate ratios were calculated with the White ethnic group as reference. Sensitivity analyses used imputed ethnicity for cases with missing data and perturbed population estimates. RESULTS: Incidence rates for most cancer sites and ethnic group and sex combinations were lower in non-White minority ethnic groups compared with the corresponding White group, with particularly low rate ratios (below 0.5) for melanoma skin cancer and some smoking-related cancers (lung, bladder and oesophageal cancers). Exceptions included prostate cancer (2.1 times higher in males of Black ethnicity), myeloma (2.7-3.0 times higher in people of Black ethnicity), several gastrointestinal cancers (1.1-1.9 times higher in people of Black ethnicity, 1.4-2.2 times higher in people of Asian ethnicity), Hodgkin lymphoma (1.1 times higher in males of Asian ethnicity, 1.3 times higher in males of Black ethnicity) and thyroid cancers (1.4 times higher in people of Asian ethnicity, 1.2 times higher in people of Black ethnicity). Sensitivity analyses did not materially alter these results (rate ratios changed by a maximum of 12 percentage points, the direction and significance of results were unchanged in all but two cancer site/sex/ethnic group combinations). CONCLUSIONS: People of non-White minority ethnicity in England generally have lower cancer risk than the White population, though there are a number of notable exceptions. These results should galvanise efforts to better understand the reasons for this variation, and the possible impact on cancer services, patient experiences and outcomes.

Oral etoposide as a single agent in childhood and young adult cancer in England: Still a poorly evaluated palliative treatment.

BACKGROUND: Oral etoposide is commonly used in palliative treatment of childhood and young adult cancer without robust evidence. We describe a national, unselected cohort of young people in England treated with oral etoposide using routinely collected, population-level data. METHODS: Patients aged under 25 years at cancer diagnosis (1995-2017) with a treatment record of single-agent oral etoposide in the Systemic AntiCancer Dataset (SACT, 2012-2018) were identified, linked to national cancer registry data using NHS number and followed to 5 January 2019. Overall survival (OS) was estimated for all tumours combined and by tumour group. A Cox model was applied accounting for age, sex, tumour type, prior and subsequent chemotherapy. RESULTS: Total 115 patients were identified during the study period. Mean age was 11.8 years at cancer diagnosis and 15.5 years at treatment with oral etoposide. Median OS was 5.5 months from the start of etoposide; 13 patients survived beyond 2 years. Survival was shortest in patients with osteosarcoma (median survival 3.6 months) and longest in CNS embryonal tumours (15.5 months). Across the cohort, a median of one cycle (range one to nine) of etoposide was delivered. OS correlated significantly with tumour type and prior chemotherapy, but not with other variables. CONCLUSIONS: This report is the largest series to date of oral etoposide use in childhood and young adult cancer. Most patients treated in this real world setting died quickly. Despite decades of use, there are still no robust data demonstrating a clear benefit of oral etoposide for survival.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on cancer care but there is little direct evidence to quantify any effect. This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England. METHODS: Data were extracted from four population-based datasets spanning NHS England (the National Cancer Cancer Waiting Time Monitoring, Monthly Diagnostic, Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care and the National Radiotherapy datasets) for all referrals, colonoscopies, surgical procedures, and courses of rectal radiotherapy from Jan 1, 2019, to Oct 31, 2020, related to colorectal cancer in England. Differences in patterns of care were investigated between 2019 and 2020. Percentage reductions in monthly numbers and proportions were calculated. FINDINGS: As compared to the monthly average in 2019, in April, 2020, there was a 63% (95% CI 53-71) reduction (from 36 274 to 13 440) in the monthly number of 2-week referrals for suspected cancer and a 92% (95% CI 89-95) reduction in the number of colonoscopies (from 46 441 to 3484). Numbers had just recovered by October, 2020. This resulted in a 22% (95% CI 8-34) relative reduction in the number of cases referred for treatment (from a monthly average of 2781 in 2019 to 2158 referrals in April, 2020). By October, 2020, the monthly rate had returned to 2019 levels but did not exceed it, suggesting that, from April to October, 2020, over 3500 fewer people had been diagnosed and treated for colorectal cancer in England than would have been expected. There was also a 31% (95% CI 19-42) relative reduction in the numbers receiving surgery in April, 2020, and a lower proportion of laparoscopic and a greater proportion of stoma-forming procedures, relative to the monthly average in 2019. By October, 2020, laparoscopic surgery and stoma rates were similar to 2019 levels. For rectal cancer, there was a 44% (95% CI 17-76) relative increase in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in April, 2020, relative to the monthly average in 2019, due to greater use of short-course regimens. Although in June, 2020, there was a drop in the use of short-course regimens, rates remained above 2019 levels until October, 2020. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sustained reduction in the number of people referred, diagnosed, and treated for colorectal cancer. By October, 2020, achievement of care pathway targets had returned to 2019 levels, albeit with smaller volumes of patients and with modifications to usual practice. As pressure grows in the NHS due to the second wave of COVID-19, urgent action is needed to address the growing burden of undetected and untreated colorectal cancer in England. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, NHS Digital, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Establishing population-based surveillance of diagnostic timeliness using linked cancer registry and administrative data for patients with colorectal and lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients is important for clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction but, to-date, continuous monitoring of diagnostic intervals in nationwide incident cohorts has been impossible in England. METHODS: We developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval (SCDI - first relevant secondary care contact to diagnosis) using linked cancer registration and healthcare utilisation data. Using this method, we subsequently examined diagnostic timeliness in colorectal and lung cancer patients (2014-15) by socio-demographic characteristics, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: The approach assigned SCDIs to 94.4% of all incident colorectal cancer cases [median length (90th centile) of 25 (104) days] and 95.3% of lung cancer cases [36 (144) days]. Advanced stage patients had shorter intervals (median, colorectal: stage 1 vs 4 - 34 vs 19 days; lung stage 1&2 vs 3B&4 - 70 vs 27 days). Routinely referred patients had the longest (colorectal: 61, lung: 69 days) and emergency presenters the shortest intervals (colorectal: 3, lung: 14 days). Comorbidities and additional diagnostic tests were also associated with longer intervals. CONCLUSION: This new method can enable repeatable nationwide measurement of cancer diagnostic timeliness in England and identifies actionable variation to inform early diagnosis interventions and target future research.

The fraction of cancer attributable to modifiable risk factors in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the United Kingdom in 2015.

BACKGROUND: Changing population-level exposure to modifiable risk factors is a key driver of changing cancer incidence. Understanding these changes is therefore vital when prioritising risk-reduction policies, in order to have the biggest impact on reducing cancer incidence. UK figures on the number of risk factor-attributable cancers are updated here to reflect changing behaviour as assessed in representative national surveys, and new epidemiological evidence. Figures are also presented by UK constituent country because prevalence of risk factor exposure varies between them. METHODS: Population attributable fractions (PAFs) were calculated for combinations of risk factor and cancer type with sufficient/convincing evidence of a causal association. Relative risks (RRs) were drawn from meta-analyses of cohort studies where possible. Prevalence of exposure to risk factors was obtained from nationally representative population surveys. Cancer incidence data for 2015 were sourced from national data releases and, where needed, personal communications. PAF calculations were stratified by age, sex and risk factor exposure level and then combined to create summary PAFs by cancer type, sex and country. RESULTS: Nearly four in ten (37.7%) cancer cases in 2015 in the UK were attributable to known risk factors. The proportion was around two percentage points higher in UK males (38.6%) than in UK females (36.8%). Comparing UK countries, the attributable proportion was highest in Scotland (41.5% for persons) and lowest in England (37.3% for persons). Tobacco smoking contributed by far the largest proportion of attributable cancer cases, followed by overweight/obesity, accounting for 15.1% and 6.3%, respectively, of all cases in the UK in 2015. For 10 cancer types, including two of the five most common cancer types in the UK (lung cancer and melanoma skin cancer), more than 70% of UK cancer cases were attributable to known risk factors. CONCLUSION: Tobacco and overweight/obesity remain the top contributors of attributable cancer cases. Tobacco smoking has the highest PAF because it greatly increases cancer risk and has a large number of cancer types associated with it. Overweight/obesity has the second-highest PAF because it affects a high proportion of the UK population and is also linked with many cancer types. Public health policy may seek to mitigate the level of harm associated with exposure or reduce exposure levels-both approaches may effectively impact cancer incidence. Differences in PAFs between countries and sexes are primarily due to varying prevalence of exposure to risk factors and varying proportions of specific cancer types. This variation in turn is affected by socio-demographic differences which drive differences in exposure to theoretically avoidable 'lifestyle' factors. PAFs at UK country level have not been available previously and they should be used by policymakers in devolved nations. PAFs are estimates based on the best available data, limitations in those data would generally bias toward underestimation of PAFs. Regular collection of risk factor exposure prevalence data which corresponds with epidemiological evidence is vital for analyses like this and should remain a priority for the UK Government and devolved Administrations.

Variations in parthenolide content and daily dose of feverfew products.

Variations in the parthenolide content of feverfew products available to consumers were studied. Feverfew products were analyzed for the content of parthenolide, the purported active component. The actual weight of feverfew was determined only in those products containing dried feverfew leaf. The total daily doses of feverfew leaf and parthenolide were calculated by using the instructions on each product label. Parthenolide content was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. The quantity of feverfew leaf in each capsule was similar to that stated on the label and ranged from 25 to 500 mg. Parthenolide content per dosage form varied 150-fold (from 0.02 to 3.0 mg), while percent parthenolide varied 5.3-fold (from 0.14% to 0.74%). If a person consumed the daily dose recommended on the label, intake of dried feverfew leaf would range from 225 to 2246 mg/day, a 10-fold variation, while intake of parthenolide would range from 0.06 to 9.7 mg/day, a 160-fold variation. Large variations were observed in the parthenolide contents and daily intake as recommended by the labeling in commercial feverfew products.