Changes in management and outcome of patients with rectal cancer in northern ireland:1996-2006

Aim This study aimed to document developments in rectal cancer services in a UK population and evaluate changes in outcome over a 10-year period.

Method Patients diagnosed with primary rectal carcinoma in 1996, 2001 and 2006 were identified by the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. Data were retrospectively collected on presentation, investigation, treatment and staging. Differences over the period were analysed using the chi-squared test; Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression tests were used for survival analysis.

Results After exclusions there were 636 patients, including 187 presenting in 1996, 203 in 2001 and 246 in 2006. The use of preoperative MRI of the rectum, endorectal ultrasound and abdominal CT increased during the study period. For patients treated by surgery, total mesorectal excision (TME) increased from 19% in 1996 to 64% in 2006 (P < 0.001). The use of radiotherapy (27% in 1996, 47% in 2006) and chemotherapy (21% in 1996, 32% in 2006) increased. The overall 5-year survival improved significantly between 1996 and 2006 from 34% in 1996 to 45% in 2006 (P = 0.02). Among patients having surgery, 5-year survival increased from 43% in 1996 to 63% in 2006 (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the improvement in survival was associated with TME and chemotherapy, while radiotherapy was not.

Conclusion Survival of patients with rectal cancer in Northern Ireland has improved significantly over the last decade, probably due to the increased use of TME and chemotherapy.

Keywords Surgery, rectum, oncology

What does this paper add to the literature?
This population-based study demonstrates a significant improvement in survival over recent years of rectal cancer patients in Northern Ireland. It concludes that surgical resection with TME and chemotherapy have had a significant impact on survival and that the improvement was not due to a stage-migration effect.

Risk of Several Cancers is Higher in Urban Areas after Adjusting for Socioeconomic Status. Results from a Two-Country Population-Based Study of 18 Common Cancers

Some studies suggest that there are urban-rural variations in cancer incidence but whether these simply reflect urban-rural socioeconomic variation is unclear. We investigated whether there were urban-rural variations in the incidence of 18 cancers, after adjusting for socioeconomic status. Cancers diagnosed between 1995 and 2007 were extracted from the population-based National Cancer Registry Ireland and Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and categorised by urban-rural status, based on population density of area of residence at diagnosis (rural 15 people per hectare). Relative risks (RR) were calculated by negative binomial regression, adjusting for age, country and three area-based markers of socioeconomic status. Risks were significantly higher in both sexes in urban than rural residents with head and neck (males RR urban vs. rural = 1.53, 95 % CI 1.42-1.64; females RR = 1.29, 95 % CI 1.15-1.45), esophageal (males 1.21, 1.11-1.31; females 1.21, 1.08-1.35), stomach (males 1.36, 1.27-1.46; females 1.19, 1.08-1.30), colorectal (males 1.14, 1.09-1.18; females 1.04, 1.00-1.09), lung (males 1.54, 1.47-1.61; females 1.74, 1.65-1.84), non-melanoma skin (males 1.13, 1.10-1.17; females 1.23, 1.19-1.27) and bladder (males 1.30, 1.21-1.39; females 1.31, 1.17-1.46) cancers. Risks of breast, cervical, kidney and brain cancer were significantly higher in females in urban areas. Prostate cancer risk was higher in rural areas (0.94, 0.90-0.97). Other cancers showed no significant urban-rural differences. After adjusting for socioeconomic variation, urban-rural differences were evident for 12 of 18 cancers. Variations in healthcare utilization and known risk factors likely explain some of the observed associations. Explanations for others are unclear and, in the interests of equity, warrant further investigation. © 2014 The New York Academy of Medicine.

Completeness and timeliness: Cancer registries could/should improve their performance

Cancer registries must provide complete and reliable incidence information with the shortest possible delay for use in studies such as comparability, clustering, cancer in the elderly and adequacy of cancer surveillance. Methods of varying complexity are available to registries for monitoring completeness and timeliness. We wished to know which methods are currently in use among cancer registries, and to compare the results of our findings to those of a survey carried out in 2006.

Methods
In the framework of the EUROCOURSE project, and to prepare cancer registries for participation in the ERA-net scheme, we launched a survey on the methods used to assess completeness, and also on the timeliness and methods of dissemination of results by registries. We sent the questionnaire to all general registries (GCRs) and specialised registries (SCRs) active in Europe and within the European Network of Cancer Registries (ENCR).

Results
With a response rate of 66% among GCRs and 59% among SCRs, we obtained data for analysis from 116 registries with a population coverage of ∼280 million. The most common methods used were comparison of trends (79%) and mortality/incidence ratios (more than 60%). More complex methods were used less commonly: capture–recapture by 30%, flow method by 18% and death certificate notification (DCN) methods with the Ajiki formula by 9%.

The median latency for completion of ascertainment of incidence was 18 months. Additional time required for dissemination was of the order of 3–6 months, depending on the method: print or electronic. One fifth (21%) did not publish results for their own registry but only as a contribution to larger national or international data repositories and publications; this introduced a further delay in the availability of data.

Conclusions
Cancer registries should improve the practice of measuring their completeness regularly and should move from traditional to more quantitative methods. This could also have implications in the timeliness of data publication.