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.

Breast (female), colorectal, and lung cancer survival in people with intellectual or developmental disabilities: A population-based retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer is a leading cause of death among people living with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). There is little empirical evidence documenting survival or comparing outcomes to those without IDD. This study investigated the association between IDD and cancer survival among adults with breast (female), colorectal, or lung cancer. METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, with routinely collected data. Patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer were included (2007‒2019). IDD status before cancer was determined using an established administrative data algorithm. The outcomes of interest included death from any cause and death from cancer. Cox proportional hazards models and competing events analyses using multivariable cause-specific hazards regression were completed. Analyses were stratified by cancer type. Interactions with age, sex, and stage at diagnosis, as well as sensitivity analyses, were completed. RESULTS: The final cohorts included 123,695 breast, 98,809 colorectal, and 116,232 lung cancer patients. Individuals with IDD experienced significantly worse survival than those without IDD. The adjusted hazard ratios of all-cause death were 2.74 (95% CI 2.41‒3.12), 2.42 (95% CI 2.18‒2.68), and 1.49 (95% CI 1.34‒1.66) times higher for breast, colorectal, and lung cancer patients with IDD relative to those without. These findings were consistent for cancer-specific deaths. With few exceptions, worse survival for people with IDD persisted regardless of stage at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: People with IDD experienced worse cancer survival than those without IDD. Identifying and intervening on the factors and structures responsible for survival disparities is imperative.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Le cancer est l'une des principales causes de mortalité chez les personnes vivant avec des déficiences intellectuelles ou des troubles du développement (DI/TD). Il y a peu de preuves empiriques décrivant la survie de ces personnes lorsqu'elles sont atteintes d'un cancer ou comparant leurs résultats à ceux des personnes sans DI/TD. Notre étude porte sur l'association entre les DI/TD et la survie au cancer chez les adultes atteints de cancer du sein (femmes), du colorectum ou du poumon. MéTHODE: Une étude de cohorte rétrospective populationnelle a été menée en Ontario, au Canada, à l'aide de données recueillies systématiquement. Nous avons inclus les patientes et les patients atteints de cancer du sein, du colorectum ou du poumon (2007‒2019). Nous avons identifié la présence des DI/TD avant le cancer à l'aide d'un algorithme de traitement de données administratives reconnu. Les résultats d'intérêt étaient les décès de toutes causes et les décès dus au cancer. Nous avons appliqué des modèles des risques proportionnels de Cox et des analyses des événements concurrents en utilisant la régression multivariée des risques par cause. Nos analyses ont été stratifiées selon le type de cancer. Nous avons tenu compte des interactions avec l'âge, le sexe et le stade au diagnostic et effectué des analyses de sensibilité. RéSULTATS: Les cohortes finales ont inclus 123 695 personnes atteintes de cancer du sein, 98 809 atteintes de cancer colorectal et 116 232 atteintes de cancer du poumon. La survie des sujets ayant des DI/TD a été significativement moins bonne que celle des sujets sans DI/TD. Les rapports de risques instantanés ajustés pour les décès de toutes causes étaient 2,74 fois (IC de 95 % 2,41‒3,12), 2,42 fois (IC de 95 % 2,18‒2,68) et 1,49 fois (IC de 95 % 1,34‒1,66) plus élevés chez les personnes atteintes de cancer du sein, du colorectum et du poumon et ayant des DI/TD que chez les personnes sans DI/TD. Ces constatations ressortent pour tous les décès attribuables à des cancers particuliers. Avec peu d'exceptions, la survie moins bonne pour les personnes ayant des DI/TD persistait quel que soit le stade au moment du diagnostic. CONCLUSION: La survie au cancer était moins bonne chez les personnes ayant des DI/TD que chez celles n'ayant pas de DI/TD. Il est impératif d'identifier les facteurs et les structures responsables de ces disparités dans la survie et d'intervenir en conséquence.

Impact of age, comorbidity, and polypharmacy on receipt of systemic therapy in advanced cancers: A retrospective population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer incidence, comorbidity, and polypharmacy increase with age, but the interplay between these factors on receipt of systemic therapy (ST) in advanced cancer has rarely been studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted including patients aged ≥18 years diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 with multiple myeloma (MM) (all stages), lung cancer (stage IV), and stage III-IV non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), breast, colorectal (CRC), prostate, or ovarian cancer in Manitoba, Canada. Clinical and administrative health data were used to determine demographic and cancer characteristics, treatment history, comorbidity (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI] and Resource Utilization Band [RUB]), and polypharmacy (≥6 medications). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate variable associations with receipt of ST and interaction with age. RESULTS: In total, 17,228 patients were diagnosed with advanced cancer. Ages were distributed as follows: 7% <50 years, 16% 50-59 years, 26% 60-69, 26% 70-79, 24% ≥80 years. ST was administered to 50% of patients. Increased age, polypharmacy, and comorbidity each independently decreased the likelihood of receiving ST. Significant interaction effects were found between age at diagnosis with stage of cancer and cancer type. Differences in probability of ST by cancer stage converged as age increased. In multivariable analysis, adjusting for covariates, patients with MM had the highest odds and lung cancer the lowest odds to receive ST. The impact of comorbidity and polypharmacy did not differ meaningfully with increasing age. DISCUSSION: Increased age, polypharmacy, and comorbidity were each independently associated with decreased receipt of ST in people with advanced cancers. The impact of comorbidity and polypharmacy did not differ meaningfully with increasing age, while age meaningfully interacted with stage and cancer type.

Investigating inequalities in cancer staging and survival for adults with intellectual or developmental disabilities and cancer: A population-based study in Manitoba, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death among adults living with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). However, few epidemiological studies exist worldwide quantifying inequalities in cancer stage at diagnosis and survival for people with IDD relative to those without IDD. METHODS: A population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted using provincial health and social administrative data in Manitoba, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) with a cancer diagnosis between 2004 and 2017 were included. Lifetime IDD was identified before the cancer diagnosis using an established algorithm. Modified Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to estimate the association between IDD status and metastatic cancer at diagnosis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to the effect of IDD on overall survival following the cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: The staging and prognosis cohorts included 62,886 (n = 473 with IDD) and 74,143 (n = 592 with IDD) cancer patients, respectively. People living with IDD were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with metastatic cancer and die following their cancer diagnosis compared to those without IDD (RR=1.20; 95 % CI 1.05-1.38; HR= 1.53; 95 % CI 1.38-1.71). Significant heterogeneity by sex was identified for cancer survival (p = 0.005). DISCUSSION: People with IDD had more advanced cancer stage at diagnosis and worse survival relative to those without IDD. Identifying and developing strategies to address the factors responsible that contribute to these disparities is required for improving patient-centred cancer care for adults with IDD.

Stage IV breast, colorectal, and lung cancer at diagnosis in adults living with intellectual or developmental disabilities: A population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death among people living with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). Although studies have documented lower cancer screening rates, there is limited epidemiological evidence quantifying potential diagnostic delays. This study explores the risk of metastatic cancer stage for people with IDD compared to those without IDD among breast (female), colorectal, and lung cancer patients in Canada. METHODS: Separate population-based cross-sectional studies were conducted in Ontario and Manitoba by linking routinely collected data. Breast (female), colorectal, and lung cancer patients were included (Manitoba: 2004-2017; Ontario: 2007-2019). IDD status was identified using established administrative algorithms. Modified Poisson regression with robust error variance models estimated associations between IDD status and the likelihood of being diagnosed with metastatic cancer. Adjusted relative risks were pooled between provinces using random-effects meta-analyses. Potential effect modification was considered. RESULTS: The final cohorts included 115,456, 89,815, and 101,811 breast (female), colorectal, and lung cancer patients, respectively. Breast (female) and colorectal cancer patients with IDD were 1.60 and 1.44 times more likely to have metastatic cancer (stage IV) at diagnosis compared to those without IDD (relative risk [RR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.20; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.24-1.67). This increased risk was not observed in lung cancer. Significant effect modification was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: People with IDD were more likely to have stage IV breast and colorectal cancer identified at diagnosis compared to those without IDD. Identifying factors and processes contributing to stage disparities such as lower screening rates and developing strategies to address diagnostic delays is critical.

Diagnostic pathways for breast cancer in 10 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions: an international comparative cohort study based on questionnaire and registry data.

OBJECTIVES: A growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. SETTING: Primary care in 10 jurisdictions. PARTICIPANT: Data were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals. RESULTS: Overall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3-29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0-20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8-29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15-39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4-78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario). CONCLUSIONS: Large international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.

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.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.

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.

Mapping Canadian Data Assets to Generate Real-World Evidence: Lessons Learned from Canadian Real-World Evidence for Value of Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration's RWE Data Working Group.

Canadian provinces routinely collect patient-level data for administrative purposes. These real-world data (RWD) can be used to generate real-world evidence (RWE) to inform clinical care and healthcare policy. The CanREValue Collaboration is developing a framework for the use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions. A Data Working Group (WG) was established to identify data assets across Canada for generating RWE of oncology drugs. The mapping exercise was conducted using an iterative scan with informant surveys and teleconference. Data experts from ten provinces convened for a total of three teleconferences and two in-person meetings from March 2018 to September 2019. Following each meeting, surveys were developed and shared with the data experts which focused on identifying databases and data elements, as well as a feasibility assessment of conducting RWE studies using existing data elements and resources. Survey responses were compiled into an interim data report, which was used for public stakeholder consultation. The feedback from the public consultation was used to update the interim data report. We found that databases required to conduct real-world studies are often held by multiple different data custodians. Ninety-seven databases were identified across Canada. Provinces held on average 9 distinct databases (range: 8-11). An Essential RWD Table was compiled that contains data elements that are necessary, at a minimal, to conduct an RWE study. An Expanded RWD Table that contains a more comprehensive list of potentially relevant data elements was also compiled and the availabilities of these data elements were mapped. While most provinces have data on patient demographics (e.g., age, sex) and cancer-related variables (e.g., morphology, topography), the availability and linkability of data on cancer treatment, clinical characteristics (e.g., morphology and topography), and drug costs vary among provinces. Based on current resources, data availability, and access processes, data experts in most provinces noted that more than 12 months would be required to complete an RWE study. The CanREValue Collaboration's Data WG identified key data holdings, access considerations, as well as gaps in oncology treatment-specific data. This data catalogue can be used to facilitate future oncology-specific RWE analyses across Canada.

Evaluating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening in a central Canadian province.

We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on cancer screening in Manitoba, Canada using an interrupted time series (ITS) design and data from Manitoba's population-based, organized cancer screening programs from April 2020 to August 2021. In June 2020 (breast screening was suspended during April and May 2020), there was a 54% decrease between the predicted (i.e., observed data produced from regression models) and expected (i.e., counterfactual values produced for the COVID-19 period by assuming COVID-19 did not occur) number of screening mammograms (ratio = 0.46, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.28-0.64). By December 2020, there was no significant difference between predicted and expected number of screening mammograms (ratio = 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.10). In April 2020, there was an 83% decrease in the number of Pap tests (ratio = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.30). By January 2021, there was no significant difference between predicted and expected number of Pap tests (ratio = 0.93, 95% CI 0.81-1.06). In April 2020, there was an 81% decrease in the number of screening program fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) (ratio = 0.19, 95% CI 0.0-0.44). By September 2020, there was no significant difference between predicted and expected number of FOBTs (ratio = 0.95, 95% CI 0.65-1.24). The estimated cumulative deficit (i.e., backlog) from April 2020 to August 2021 was 17,370 screening mammograms, 22,086 Pap tests, and 5253 screening program FOBTs. Overall, screening programs adapted quickly to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional strategies may be needed to address remaining backlogs.

Population-Based Cancer Survival in Canada and the United States by Socioeconomic Status: Findings from the CONCORD-2 Study.

Background: Population-based cancer survival provides insight into the effectiveness of health systems to care for all residents with cancer, including those in marginalized groups. Methods: Using CONCORD-2 data, we estimated 5-year net survival among patients diagnosed 2004-2009 with one of 10 common cancers, and children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), by socioeconomic status (SES) quintile, age (0-14, 15-64, ≥65 years), and country (Canada or United States). Results: In the lowest SES quintile, survival was higher among younger Canadian adults diagnosed with liver (23% vs 15%) and cervical (78% vs 68%) cancers and with leukemia (62% vs 56%), including children diagnosed with ALL (92% vs 86%); and higher among older Americans diagnosed with colon (62% vs 56%), female breast (87% vs 80%), and prostate (97% vs 85%) cancers. In the highest SES quintile, survival was higher among younger Americans diagnosed with stomach cancer (33% vs 27%) and younger Canadians diagnosed with liver cancer (31% vs 23%); and higher among older Americans diagnosed with stomach (27% vs 22%) and prostate (99% vs 92%) cancers. Conclusions: Among younger Canadian cancer patients in the lowest SES group, greater access to health care may have resulted in higher cancer survival, while higher screening prevalence and access to health insurance (Medicare) among older Americans during the period of this study may have resulted in higher survival for some screen-detected cancers. Higher survival in the highest SES group for stomach and liver may relate to treatment differences. Survival differences by age and SES between Canada and the United States may help inform cancer control strategies.

Patient and family financial burden associated with cancer treatment in Canada: a national study.

GOAL: To determine patient-reported financial and family burden associated with treatment of cancer in the previous 28 days across Canada. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire (P-SAFE v7.2.4) was completed by 901 patients with cancer from twenty cancer centres nationally (344 breast, 183 colorectal, 158 lung, 216 prostate) measuring direct and indirect costs related to cancer treatment and foregone care. Monthly self-reported out-of-pocket-costs (OOPCs) included drugs, homecare, homemaking, complementary/ alternative medicines, vitamins/supplements, family care, accommodations, devices, and "other" costs. Travel and parking costs were captured separately. Patients indicated if OOPC, travel, parking, and lost income were a financial burden. RESULTS: Mean 28-day OOPCs were CA$518 (US Purchase Price Parity [PPP] $416), plus CA$179 (US PPP $144) for travel and CA$84 (US PPP $67) for parking. Patients self-reporting high financial burden had total OOPCs (33%), of CA$961 (US PPP $772), while low-burden participants (66%) had OOPCs of CA$300 (US PPP $241). "Worst burden" respondents spent a mean of 50.7% of their monthly income on OOPCs (median 20.8%). Among the 29.4% who took time off work, patients averaged 18.0 days off. Among the 26.0% of patients whose caregivers took time off work, caregivers averaged 11.5 days off. Lastly, 41% of all patients had to reduce spending. Fifty-two per cent of those who reduced spending were families earning < CA$50,000/year. CONCLUSIONS: In our Canadian sample, high levels of financial burden exist for 33% of patients, and the severity of burden is higher for those with lower household incomes.

Examining the Impact of First Nations Status on the Relationship Between Diabetes and Cancer.

Purpose: This population-based study examined the relationship between diabetes and cancer and determined if this relationship was influenced by First Nations (FN) status. Methods: In a matched case-cohort study, individuals 30-74 years of age diagnosed with diabetes during 1984-2008 in the province of Manitoba, Canada, with no cancer diagnosis before their diabetes diagnosis were matched to one diabetes-free control by age, sex, FN status, and residence. Flexible competing risk and Royston-Parmar regression models were used to compare cancer rates. Results: Overall, 72,715 individuals diagnosed with diabetes were matched to controls. In all age groups, diabetes was related to an increased risk of cancer. The relationship between diabetes and any type of cancer was not influenced by FN status (i.e., there was no interaction between the diagnosis of diabetes and people's FN status for any age group). The only significant interaction between diabetes and FN status was for kidney cancer for individuals 60-74 years of age; diabetes increased the risk of kidney cancer for all other Manitobans (AOMs) but not for FN. Conclusions: Diabetes increased the risk of cancer. The association was not modified by FN status except for kidney cancer where diabetes increased the risk for AOMs but not for FN.

Projected estimates of cancer in Canada in 2020.

BACKGROUND: Cancer projections to the current year help in policy development, planning of programs and allocation of resources. We sought to provide an overview of the expected incidence and mortality of cancer in Canada in 2020 in follow-up to the Canadian Cancer Statistics 2019 report. METHODS: We obtained incidence data from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System (1984-1991) and Canadian Cancer Registry (1992-2015). Mortality data (1984-2015) were obtained from the Canadian Vital Statistics - Death Database. All databases are maintained by Statistics Canada. Cancer incidence and mortality counts and age-standardized rates were projected to 2020 for 23 cancer types by sex and geographic region (provinces and territories) for all ages combined. RESULTS: An estimated 225 800 new cancer cases and 83 300 cancer deaths are expected in Canada in 2020. The most commonly diagnosed cancers are expected to be lung overall (29 800), breast in females (27 400) and prostate in males (23 300). Lung cancer is also expected to be the leading cause of cancer death, accounting for 25.5% of all cancer deaths, followed by colorectal (11.6%), pancreatic (6.4%) and breast (6.1%) cancers. Incidence and mortality rates will be generally higher in the eastern provinces than in the western provinces. INTERPRETATION: The number of cancer cases and deaths remains high in Canada and, owing to the growing and aging population, is expected to continue to increase. Although progress has been made in reducing deaths for most major cancers (breast, prostate and lung), there has been limited progress for pancreatic cancer, which is expected to be the third leading cause of cancer death in Canada in 2020. Additional efforts to improve uptake of existing programs, as well as to advance research, prevention, screening and treatment, are needed to address the cancer burden in Canada.

Time intervals and routes to diagnosis for lung cancer in 10 jurisdictions: cross-sectional study findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

OBJECTIVE: Differences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer. DESIGN: Newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: With the exception of Denmark (-49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012-2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (-11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (-20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (-13), Manitoba (-11), England (-9) and Northern Ireland (-4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%. CONCLUSION: There are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.

Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer survival estimates provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of cancer services and can reflect the prospects of cure. As part of the second phase of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), the Cancer Survival in High-Income Countries (SURVMARK-2) project aims to provide a comprehensive overview of cancer survival across seven high-income countries and a comparative assessment of corresponding incidence and mortality trends. METHODS: In this longitudinal, population-based study, we collected patient-level data on 3·9 million patients with cancer from population-based cancer registries in 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK) for seven sites of cancer (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, lung, and ovary) diagnosed between 1995 and 2014, and followed up until Dec 31, 2015. We calculated age-standardised net survival at 1 year and 5 years after diagnosis by site, age group, and period of diagnosis. We mapped changes in incidence and mortality to changes in survival to assess progress in cancer control. FINDINGS: In 19 eligible jurisdictions, 3 764 543 cases of cancer were eligible for inclusion in the study. In the 19 included jurisdictions, over 1995-2014, 1-year and 5-year net survival increased in each country across almost all cancer types, with, for example, 5-year rectal cancer survival increasing more than 13 percentage points in Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. For 2010-14, survival was generally higher in Australia, Canada, and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Over the study period, larger survival improvements were observed for patients younger than 75 years at diagnosis than those aged 75 years and older, and notably for cancers with a poor prognosis (ie, oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, and lung). Progress in cancer control (ie, increased survival, decreased mortality and incidence) over the study period was evident for stomach, colon, lung (in males), and ovarian cancer. INTERPRETATION: The joint evaluation of trends in incidence, mortality, and survival indicated progress in four of the seven studied cancers. Cancer survival continues to increase across high-income countries; however, international disparities persist. While truly valid comparisons require differences in registration practice, classification, and coding to be minimal, stage of disease at diagnosis, timely access to effective treatment, and the extent of comorbidity are likely the main determinants of patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of these factors to further our understanding of international disparities in cancer survival. 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.

Impact of variation in cancer registration practice on observed international cancer survival differences between International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) jurisdictions.

BACKGROUND: International cancer survival comparisons use cancer registration data to report cancer survival, which informs the development of cancer policy and practice. Studies like the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) have a duty to understand how registration differences impact on survival prior to drawing conclusions. METHODS: Key informants reported differences in registration practice for capturing incidence date, death certificate case handling and registration of multiple primary tumours. Sensitivity analyses estimated their impact on one-year survival using baseline and supplementary cancer registration data from England and Sweden. RESULTS: Variations in registration practice accounted for up to a 7.3 percentage point difference between unadjusted (estimates from previous ICBP survival data) and adjusted (estimates recalculated accounting for registration differences) one-year survival, depending on tumour site and jurisdiction. One-year survival estimates for four jurisdictions were affected by adjustment: New South Wales, Norway, Ontario, Sweden. Sweden and Ontario's survival reduced after adjustment, yet they remained the jurisdictions with the highest survival for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Sweden had the highest unadjusted lung cancer survival of 43.6% which was adjusted to 39.0% leaving Victoria and Manitoba with the highest estimate at 42.7%. For colorectal cancer, Victoria's highest survival of 85.1% remained unchanged after adjustment. CONCLUSION: Population-based cancer survival comparisons can be subject to registration biases that may impact the reported 'survival gap' between populations. Efforts should be made to apply consistent registration practices internationally. In the meantime, survival comparison studies should provide acknowledgement of or adjustment for the registration biases that may affect their conclusions.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for patients with colorectal cancer in 10 international jurisdictions; findings from a cross-sectional study from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

OBJECTIVE: International differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia). DESIGN: Patients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients' primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Interval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary). RESULTS: The main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was 'bleeding/blood in stool'. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results. CONCLUSION: ICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions.