Population-based survival estimates for childhood cancer in Australia during the period 1997–2006

Background: This study provides the latest available relative survival data for Australian childhood cancer patients. Methods: Data from the population-based Australian Paediatric Cancer Registry were used to describe relative survival outcomes using the period method for 11 903 children diagnosed with cancer between 1983 and 2006 and prevalent at any time between 1997 and 2006. Results: The overall relative survival was 90.4% after 1 year, 79.5% after 5 years and 74.7% after 20 years. Where information onstage at diagnosis was available (lymphomas, neuroblastoma, renal tumours and rhabdomyosarcomas), survival was significantly poorer for more-advanced stage. Survival was lower among infants compared with other children for those diagnosed with leukaemia, tumours of the central nervous system and renal tumours but higher for neuroblastoma. Recent improvements in overall childhood cancer survival over time are mainly because of improvements among leukaemia patients. Conclusion: The high and improving survival prognosis for children diagnosed with cancer in Australia is consistent with various international estimates. However, a 5-year survival estimate of 79% still means that many children who are diagnosed with cancer will die within 5 years, whereas others have long-term health morbidities and complications associated with their treatments. It is hoped that continued developments in treatment protocols will result in further improvements in survival.

Multilevel determinants of breast cancer survival : association with geographic remoteness and area-level socioeconomic disadvantage

A major priority for cancer control agencies is to reduce geographical inequalities in cancer outcomes. While the poorer breast cancer survival among socioeconomically disadvantaged women is well established, few studies have looked at the independent contribution that area- and individual-level factors make to breast cancer survival. Here we examine relationships between geographic remoteness, area-level socioeconomic disadvantage and breast cancer survival after adjustment for patients’ socio- demographic characteristics and stage at diagnosis. Multilevel logistic regression and Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation were used to analyze 18 568 breast cancer cases extracted from the Queensland Cancer Registry for women aged 30 to 70 years diagnosed between 1997 and 2006 from 478 Statistical Local Areas in Queensland, Australia. Independent of individual-level factors, area-level disadvantage was associated with breast-cancer survival (p=0.032). Compared to women in the least disadvantaged quintile (Quintile 5), women diagnosed while resident in one of the remaining four quintiles had significantly worse survival (OR 1.23, 1.27, 1.30, 1.37 for Quintiles 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively).) Geographic remoteness was not related to lower survival after multivariable adjustment. There was no evidence that the impact of area-level disadvantage varied by geographic remoteness. At the individual level, Indigenous status, blue collar occupations and advanced disease were important predictors of poorer survival. A woman’s survival after a diagnosis of breast cancer depends on the socio-economic characteristics of the area where she lives, independently of her individual-level characteristics. It is crucial that the underlying reasons for these inequalities be identified to appropriately target policies, resources and effective intervention strategies.

Identification of area-level influences on regions of high cancer incidence in Queensland, Australia : a classification tree approach

Background: Strategies for cancer reduction and management are targeted at both individual and area levels. Area-level strategies require careful understanding of geographic differences in cancer incidence, in particular the association with factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity and accessibility. This study aimed to identify the complex interplay of area-level factors associated with high area-specific incidence of Australian priority cancers using a classification and regression tree (CART) approach. Methods: Area-specific smoothed standardised incidence ratios were estimated for priority-area cancers across 478 statistical local areas in Queensland, Australia (1998-2007, n=186,075). For those cancers with significant spatial variation, CART models were used to identify whether area-level accessibility, socioeconomic status and ethnicity were associated with high area-specific incidence. Results: The accessibility of a person’s residence had the most consistent association with the risk of cancer diagnosis across the specific cancers. Many cancers were likely to have high incidence in more urban areas, although male lung cancer and cervical cancer tended to have high incidence in more remote areas. The impact of socioeconomic status and ethnicity on these associations differed by type of cancer. Conclusions: These results highlight the complex interactions between accessibility, socioeconomic status and ethnicity in determining cancer incidence risk.

Spatial inequalities in colorectal and breast cancer survival : premature deaths and associated factors

This study examines the influence of cancer stage, distance to treatment facilities and area disadvantage on breast and colorectal cancer spatial survival inequalities. We also estimate the number of premature deaths after adjusting for cancer stage to quantify the impact of spatial survival inequalities. Population-based descriptive study of residents aged <90 years in Queensland, Australia diagnosed with primary invasive breast (25,202 females) or colorectal (14,690 males, 11,700 females) cancers during 1996-2007. Bayesian hierarchical models explored relative survival inequalities across 478 regions. Cancer stage and disadvantage explained the spatial inequalities in breast cancer survival, however spatial inequalities in colorectal cancer survival persisted after adjustment. Of the 6,019 colorectal cancer deaths within 5 years of diagnosis, 470 (8%) were associated with spatial inequalities in non-diagnostic factors, i.e. factors beyond cancer stage at diagnosis. For breast cancers, of 2,412 deaths, 170 (7%) were related to spatial inequalities in non-diagnostic factors. Quantifying premature deaths can increase incentive for action to reduce these spatial inequalities.

Geographic remoteness, area-level socioeconomic disadvantage and inequalities in colorectal cancer survival in Queensland : a multilevel analysis

Background To explore the impact of geographical remoteness and area-level socioeconomic disadvantage on colorectal cancer (CRC) survival. Methods Multilevel logistic regression and Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations were used to analyze geographical variations in five-year all-cause and CRC-specific survival across 478 regions in Queensland Australia for 22,727 CRC cases aged 20–84 years diagnosed from 1997–2007. Results Area-level disadvantage and geographic remoteness were independently associated with CRC survival. After full multivariate adjustment (both levels), patients from remote (odds Ratio [OR]: 1.24, 95%CrI: 1.07-1.42) and more disadvantaged quintiles (OR = 1.12, 1.15, 1.20, 1.23 for Quintiles 4, 3, 2 and 1 respectively) had lower CRC-specific survival than major cities and least disadvantaged areas. Similar associations were found for all-cause survival. Area disadvantage accounted for a substantial amount of the all-cause variation between areas. Conclusions We have demonstrated that the area-level inequalities in survival of colorectal cancer patients cannot be explained by the measured individual-level characteristics of the patients or their cancer and remain after adjusting for cancer stage. Further research is urgently needed to clarify the factors that underlie the survival differences, including the importance of geographical differences in clinical management of CRC.

Comparing multilevel and Bayesian spatial random effects survival models to assess geographical inequalities in colorectal cancer survival: a case study

Background Multilevel and spatial models are being increasingly used to obtain substantive information on area-level inequalities in cancer survival. Multilevel models assume independent geographical areas, whereas spatial models explicitly incorporate geographical correlation, often via a conditional autoregressive prior. However the relative merits of these methods for large population-based studies have not been explored. Using a case-study approach, we report on the implications of using multilevel and spatial survival models to study geographical inequalities in all-cause survival. Methods Multilevel discrete-time and Bayesian spatial survival models were used to study geographical inequalities in all-cause survival for a population-based colorectal cancer cohort of 22,727 cases aged 20–84 years diagnosed during 1997–2007 from Queensland, Australia. Results Both approaches were viable on this large dataset, and produced similar estimates of the fixed effects. After adding area-level covariates, the between-area variability in survival using multilevel discrete-time models was no longer significant. Spatial inequalities in survival were also markedly reduced after adjusting for aggregated area-level covariates. Only the multilevel approach however, provided an estimation of the contribution of geographical variation to the total variation in survival between individual patients. Conclusions With little difference observed between the two approaches in the estimation of fixed effects, multilevel models should be favored if there is a clear hierarchical data structure and measuring the independent impact of individual- and area-level effects on survival differences is of primary interest. Bayesian spatial analyses may be preferred if spatial correlation between areas is important and if the priority is to assess small-area variations in survival and map spatial patterns. Both approaches can be readily fitted to geographically enabled survival data from international settings

Factors related to the presentation of thin and thick nodular melanoma from a population-based cancer registry in Queensland Australia

Purpose: Worldwide, the incidence of thick melanoma has not declined, and the nodular melanoma (NM) subtype accounts for nearly 40% of newly-diagnosed thick melanoma. To assess differences between patients with thin (≤2.00 mm) and thick (≥2.01 mm) nodular melanoma, we evaluated factors such as demographics, melanoma detection patterns, tumor visibility, and physician screening for NM alone and compared clinical presentation and anatomic location of NM with superficial spreading melanoma (SSM). Methods We utilized data from a large population-based study of Queensland (Australia) residents diagnosed with melanoma. Queensland residents aged 20 to 75 years with histologically confirmed first primary invasive cutaneous melanoma were eligible for the study, and all questionnaires were conducted by telephone (response rate 77.9%). Results During this four-year period, 369 patients with nodular melanoma were interviewed, of whom 56.7% were diagnosed with tumors ≤ 2.00 mm. Men, older individuals, and those who had not been screened by a physician in the past three years were more likely to have nodular tumors of greater thickness. Thickest nodular melanoma (4 mm+) was also most common in persons who had not been screened by a doctor within the past three years (OR 3.75; 95% CI 1.47-9.59). Forty-six percent of patients with thin nodular melanoma (≤ 2.00 mm) reported a change in color, compared with 64% of patients with thin SSM and 26% of patients with thick nodular melanoma (>2.00 mm). Conclusion Awareness of factors related to earlier detection of potentially fatal nodular melanomas, including the benefits of a physician examination, should be useful in enhancing public and professional education strategies. Particular awareness of clinical warning signs associated with thin nodular melanoma should allow for more prompt diagnosis and treatment of this subtype.

A Kallikrein 15 (KLK15) single nucleotide polymorphism located close to a novel exon shows evidence of association with poor ovarian cancer survival

KLK15 over-expression is reported to be a significant predictor of reduced progression-free survival and overall survival in ovarian cancer. Our aim was to analyse the KLK15 gene for putative functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and assess the association of these and KLK15 HapMap tag SNPs with ovarian cancer survival. Results In silico analysis was performed to identify KLK15 regulatory elements and to classify potentially functional SNPs in these regions. After SNP validation and identification by DNA sequencing of ovarian cancer cell lines and aggressive ovarian cancer patients, 9 SNPs were shortlisted and genotyped using the Sequenom iPLEX Mass Array platform in a cohort of Australian ovarian cancer patients (N = 319). In the Australian dataset we observed significantly worse survival for the KLK15 rs266851 SNP in a dominant model (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.02-1.96). This association was observed in the same direction in two independent datasets, with a combined HR for the three studies of 1.16 (1.00-1.34). This SNP lies 15bp downstream of a novel exon and is predicted to be involved in mRNA splicing. The mutant allele is also predicted to abrogate an HSF-2 binding site. Conclusions We provide evidence of association for the SNP rs266851 with ovarian cancer survival. Our results provide the impetus for downstream functional assays and additional independent validation studies to assess the role of KLK15 regulatory SNPs and KLK15 isoforms with alternative intracellular functional roles in ovarian cancer survival.