Differences in cancer awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership):Do they contribute to differences in cancer survival?

Background:There are wide international differences in 1-year cancer survival. The UK and Denmark perform poorly compared with other high-income countries with similar health care systems: Australia, Canada and Sweden have good cancer survival rates, Norway intermediate survival rates. The objective of this study was to examine the pattern of differences in cancer awareness and beliefs across these countries to identify where these might contribute to the pattern of survival.Methods:We carried out a population-based telephone interview survey of 19 079 men and women aged =50 years in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure.Results:Awareness that the risk of cancer increased with age was lower in the UK (14%), Canada (13%) and Australia (16%) but was higher in Denmark (25%), Norway (29%) and Sweden (38%). Symptom awareness was no lower in the UK and Denmark than other countries. Perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation were highest in the UK, in particular being worried about wasting the doctor's time (UK 34%; Canada 21%; Australia 14%; Denmark 12%; Norway 11%; Sweden 9%).Conclusion:The UK had low awareness of age-related risk and the highest perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation, but symptom awareness in the UK did not differ from other countries. Denmark had higher awareness of age-related risk and few perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation. This suggests that other factors must be involved in explaining Denmark's poor survival rates. In the UK, interventions that address barriers to prompt presentation in primary care should be developed and evaluated. © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.

Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000-2007:A population-based study

Background: We investigate whether differences in breast cancer survival in six high-income countries can be explained by differences in stage at diagnosis using routine data from population-based cancer registries. Methods: We analysed the data on 257 362 women diagnosed with breast cancer during 2000-7 and registered in 13 population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Flexible parametric hazard models were used to estimate net survival and the excess hazard of dying from breast cancer up to 3 years after diagnosis.Results:Age-standardised 3-year net survival was 87-89% in the UK and Denmark, and 91-94% in the other four countries. Stage at diagnosis was relatively advanced in Denmark: only 30% of women had Tumour, Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) stage I disease, compared with 42-45% elsewhere. Women in the UK had low survival for TNM stage III-IV disease compared with other countries. Conclusion: International differences in breast cancer survival are partly explained by differences in stage at diagnosis, and partly by differences in stage-specific survival. Low overall survival arises if the stage distribution is adverse (e.g. Denmark) but stage-specific survival is normal; or if the stage distribution is typical but stage-specific survival is low (e.g. UK). International differences in staging diagnostics and stage-specific cancer therapies should be investigated. © 2013 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved.

Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK:A population-based study, 2004-2007

Background: The authors consider whether differences in stage at diagnosis could explain the variation in lung cancer survival between six developed countries in 2004-2007. Methods: Routinely collected population-based data were obtained on all adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with lung cancer in 2004-2007 and registered in regional and national cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Stage data for 57 352 patients were consolidated from various classification systems. Flexible parametric hazard models on the log cumulative scale were used to estimate net survival at 1 year and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis. Results: Age-standardised 1-year net survival from non-small cell lung cancer ranged from 30% (UK) to 46% (Sweden). Patients in the UK and Denmark had lower survival than elsewhere, partly because of a more adverse stage distribution. However, there were also wide international differences in stage-specific survival. Net survival from TNM stage I non-small cell lung cancer was 16% lower in the UK than in Sweden, and for TNM stage IV disease survival was 10% lower. Similar patterns were found for small cell lung cancer. Conclusions: There are comparability issues when using population-based data but, even given these constraints, this study shows that, while differences in stage at diagnosis explain some of the international variation in overall lung cancer survival, wide disparities in stage-specific survival exist, suggesting that other factors are also important such as differences in treatment. Stage should be included in international cancer survival studies and the comparability of population-based data should be improved.

Stage at diagnosis and colorectal cancer survival in six high-income countries:A population-based study of patients diagnosed during 2000-2007

Background. Large international differences in colorectal cancer survival exist, even between countries with similar healthcare. We investigate the extent to which stage at diagnosis explains these differences. Methods. Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK were analysed for 313 852 patients diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer during 2000-2007. We compared the distributions of stage at diagnosis. We estimated both stage-specific net survival and the excess hazard of death up to three years after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log-cumulative excess hazard scale. Results. International differences in colon and rectal cancer stage distributions were wide: Denmark showed a distribution skewed towards later-stage disease, while Australia, Norway and the UK showed high proportions of 'regional' disease. One-year colon cancer survival was 67% in the UK and ranged between 71% (Denmark) and 80% (Australia and Sweden) elsewhere. For rectal cancer, one-year survival was also low in the UK (75%), compared to 79% in Denmark and 82-84% elsewhere. International survival differences were also evident for each stage of disease, with the UK showing consistently lowest survival at one and three years. Conclusion. Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international differences in colorectal cancer survival, with a more adverse stage distribution contributing to comparatively low survival in Denmark. Differences in stage distribution could arise because of differences in diagnostic delay and awareness of symptoms, or in the thoroughness of staging procedures. Nevertheless, survival differences also exist for each stage of disease, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment, particularly in the UK. © 2013 Informa Healthcare.

Stage at diagnosis and ovarian cancer survival:Evidence from the international cancer benchmarking partnership

Objective: We investigate what role stage at diagnosis bears in international differences in ovarian cancer survival. Methods: Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the UK were analysed for 20,073 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2004-07. We compare the stage distribution between countries and estimate stage-specific one-year net survival and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log cumulative excess hazard scale. Results: One-year survival was 69% in the UK, 72% in Denmark and 74-75% elsewhere. In Denmark, 74% of patients were diagnosed with FIGO stages III-IV disease, compared to 60-70% elsewhere. International differences in survival were evident at each stage of disease; women in the UK had lower survival than in the other four countries for patients with FIGO stages III-IV disease (61.4% vs. 65.8-74.4%). International differences were widest for older women and for those with advanced stage or with no stage data. Conclusion: Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international variation in ovarian cancer survival, and a more adverse stage distribution contributes to comparatively low survival in Denmark. This could arise because of differences in tumour biology, staging procedures or diagnostic delay. Differences in survival also exist within each stage, as illustrated by lower survival for advanced disease in the UK, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment. Population-based data on cancer survival by stage are vital for cancer surveillance, and global consensus is needed to make stage data in cancer registries more consistent. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey

<p>OBJECTIVES: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and systems that may contribute to the timeliness of investigating for cancer and subsequently, international survival differences.</p><p>DESIGN: A validated survey administered to PCPs via the internet set out in two parts: direct questions on primary care structure and practice relating to cancer diagnosis, and clinical vignettes, assessing management of scenarios relating to the diagnosis of lung, colorectal or ovarian cancer.</p><p>PARTICIPANTS: 2795 PCPs in 11 jurisdictions: New South Wales and Victoria (Australia), British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario (Canada), England, Northern Ireland, Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden.</p><p>PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis compared the cumulative proportion of PCPs in each jurisdiction opting to investigate or refer at each phase for each vignette with 1-year survival, and conditional 5-year survival rates for the relevant cancer and jurisdiction. Logistic regression was used to explore whether PCP characteristics or system differences in each jurisdiction affected the readiness to investigate.</p><p>RESULTS: 4 of 5 vignettes showed a statistically significant correlation (p&lt;0.05 or better) between readiness to investigate or refer to secondary care at the first phase of each vignette and cancer survival rates for that jurisdiction. No consistent associations were found between readiness to investigate and selected PCP demographics, practice or health system variables.</p><p>CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a correlation between the readiness of PCPs to investigate symptoms indicative of cancer and cancer survival rates, one of the first possible explanations for the variation in cancer survival between ICBP countries. No specific health system features consistently explained these findings. Some jurisdictions may consider lowering thresholds for PCPs to investigate for cancer-either directly, or by specialist referral, to improve outcomes.</p>

Global surveillance of cancer survival 1995–2009: analysis of individual data for 25 676 887 patients from 279 population-based registries in 67 countries (CONCORD-2)

<p>BACKGROUND: Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control.</p><p>METHODS: Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15-99 years) and 75,000 children (age 0-14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995-2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights.</p><p>FINDINGS: 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005-09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15-19% in North America, and as low as 7-9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10-20% between 1995-99 and 2005-09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995-99 and 2005-09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005-09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005-09 was high (54-58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18-23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease.</p><p>INTERPRETATION: International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems.</p><p><br/></p>

Concomitant and antecedent deep venous thrombosis and cancer survival in male US veterans

Survival is reportedly worse in patients with cancer concurrently diagnosed with deep venous thrombosis. However, information on specific malignancies is limited. From a cohort study of male US veterans we identified incident cancer cases (n aEuroS== aEuroS412 008) and compared survival patterns among those with versus without a history of deep venous thrombosis. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%% confidence intervals as measures of the relative risk of dying. Individuals with (versus without) a concomitant deep venous thrombosis and cancer diagnosis had a higher risk of dying (HR aEuroS== aEuroS1.38; 1.28--1.49). The most prominent excess mortality (HR aEuroS== aEuroS1.29--2.55) was observed among patients diagnosed with deep venous thrombosis at the time of diagnosis of lung, gastric, prostate, bladder, or kidney cancer. Increased risk of dying was also found among cancer patients diagnosed with deep venous thrombosis 1 year (HR aEuroS== aEuroS1.14; 1.07--1.22), 1--5 years (HR aEuroS== aEuroS1.14; 1.10--1.19), and &gt; 5 years (HR aEuroS== aEuroS1.27; 1.23--1.31) before cancer; this was true for most cancer sites (HR aEuroS== aEuroS1.17--1.64). In summary, antecedent deep venous thrombosis confers a worse prognosis upon cancer patients. Advanced stage at diagnosis, treatment effects, lifestyle factors, and comorbidity could explain differences by cancer site and time frame between a prior deep venous thrombosis diagnosis and cancer outcome.

Human papillomavirus related head and neck cancer survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) are reported to have improved prognosis and survival in comparison to other head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCCs). This systematic review and meta-analysis examines survival differences in HPV-positive HNSCC and OPSCC subtypes including tonsillar carcinoma in studies not previously investigated. Four electronic databases were searched from their inception till April 2011. A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool study estimates evaluating disease-specific (death from HNSCC), overall (all-cause mortality), progression-free and disease-free (recurrence free) survival outcomes in HPV-positive vs. HPV-negative HNSCCs. All statistical tests were two-sided. Forty-two studies were included. Patients with HPV-positive HNSCC had a 54% better overall survival compared to HPV-negative patients HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.37-0.57); the pooled HR for tonsillar cancer and OPSCC was 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.77) and HR 0.47 (95% CI 0.35-0.62) respectively. The pooled HR for disease specific survival was 0.28 (95% CI 0.19-0.40); similar effect sizes were found irrespective of the adjustment for confounders, HPV detection methods or study location. Both progression-free survival and disease-free survival were significantly improved in HPV-positive HNSCCs. HPV-positive HNSCCs and OPSCCs patients have a significantly lower disease specific mortality and are less likely to experience progression or recurrence of their cancer than HPV-negative patients; findings which have connotations for treatment selection in these patients.

Oesophageal cancer survival in Europe:A EUROCARE-4 study

Oesophageal cancer survival is poor with variation across Europe. No pan-European studies of survival differences by oesophageal cancer subtype exist. This study investigates rates and trends in oesophageal cancer survival across Europe. Data for primary malignant oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 1995-1999 and followed up to the end of 2003 was obtained from 66 cancer registries in 24 European countries. Relative survival was calculated using the Hakulinen approach. Staging data were available from 19 registries. Survival by region, gender, age, morphology and stage was investigated. Cohort analysis and the period approach were applied to investigate survival trends from 1988 to 2002 for 31 registries in 17 countries. In total 51,499 cases of oesophageal cancer diagnosed 1995-1999 were analysed. Overall, European 1- and 5-year survival rates were 33.4% (95% CI 32.9-33.9%) and 9.8% (95% CI 9.4-10.1%), respectively. Males, older patients and patients with late stage disease had poorer 1- and 5-year relative survival. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma had poorer 1-year relative survival. Regional variation in survival was observed with Central Europe above and Eastern Europe below the European pool. Survival for distant stage disease was similar across Europe while survival rates for localised disease were below the European pool in Eastern and Southern Europe. Improvement in European 1-year relative survival was reported (p=0.016). Oesophageal cancer survival was poor across Europe. Persistent regional variations in 1-year survival point to a need for a high resolution study of diagnostic and treatment practices of oesophageal cancer.

Dietary fat and breast cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis

As the number of breast cancer survivors increases worldwide(1), there is growing interest in the potential effect of dietary and lifestyle behaviours on overall prognosis. This is especially important as a cancer diagnosis is often referred to as a ‘teachable moment’(2) as patients seek information about lifestyle behaviours and so provision of evidence-based guidelines is essential. A positive association between dietary fat and breast cancer risk has been previously reported(3) but its influence upon breast cancer survival is unclear. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to critically appraise the literature published to date and to conduct meta-analyses to pool the results of studies to clarify the association between dietary fat and breast cancer survival.<br/>Relevant articles published up to March 2011 that examined dietary fat and breast cancer recurrence and survival were identified from searches in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Meta-analyses were conducted in which we evaluated the risk of all-cause or breast cancer death in women in the highest compared with the lowest categories of total fat intake (g/d) and per 20 g increase in intake of dietary fat. Multivariable adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% CI from individual studies were weighted and combined using a random-effects model to produce a pooled estimate.<br/>Twelve prospective cohort studies that investigated total fat intake (g) and breast cancer survival, and/or provided information on fat intake from which a linear trend could be estimated, were included in the analyses. There was no evidence of a difference in risk of breast cancer death (RR=1.14; 95% CI 0.86, 1.52; P=0.34) or all cause death (RR=1.73; 95% CI 0.82, 3.6; P=0.15) between the highest and lowest categories of total fat intake. Similarly, no significant difference in risk of breast cancer death (RR=1.03; 95% CI 0.97, 1.10; P=0.261) or all-cause death (RR=1.06; 95% CI 0.88, 1.28; P=0.52) was found per linear (20 g) increase in total fat intake.<br/>The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis do not support an association between total dietary fat and breast cancer survival. Further investigation into the effect of specific types of dietary fat and breast cancer survival is of interest.

Beta-blocker usage and breast cancer survival: a nested case-control study within a UK clinical practice research datalink cohort.

Background: To investigate the association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and risk of cancer-specific mortality in a large population-based cohort of female breast cancer patients.<br/><br/>Methods: A nested case-control study was conducted within a cohort of breast cancer patients identified from cancer registries in England(using the National Cancer Data repository) and diagnosed between 1998 and 2007. Patients who had a breast cancer-specific death(ascertained from Office of National Statistics death registration data) were each matched to four alive controls by year and age at diagnosis. Prescription data for these patients were available through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Conditional logistic regression models were used to investigate the association between breast cancer-specific death and beta-blocker usage.<br/><br/>Results: Post-diagnostic use of beta-blockers was identified in 18.9% of 1435 breast cancer-specific deaths and 19.4% of their 5697 matched controls,indicating little evidence of association between beta-blocker use and breast cancer-specific mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.97,95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.13]. There was also little evidence of an association when analyses were restricted to cardio non-selective beta-blockers (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.69, 1.17). Similar results were observed in analyses of drug dosage frequency and duration, and beta-blocker type.<br/><br/>Conclusions: In this large UK population-based cohort of breast cancer patients,there was little evidence of an association between post-diagnostic beta-blocker usage and breast cancer progression. Further studies which include information on tumour receptor status are warranted to determine whether response to beta-blockers varies by tumour subtypes.<br/>