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.

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.

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)

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. 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. 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. 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. FUNDING: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA).

Socioeconomic disparities in childhood cancer survival in Switzerland.

In this study, we investigated whether childhood cancer survival in Switzerland is influenced by socioeconomic status (SES), and if disparities vary by type of cancer and definition of SES (parental education, living condition, area-based SES). Using Cox proportional hazards models, we analyzed 5-year cumulative mortality in all patients registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry diagnosed 1991-2006 below 16 years. Information on SES was extracted from the Swiss census by probabilistic record linkage. The study included 1602 children (33% with leukemia, 20% with lymphoma, 22% with central nervous system (CNS) tumors); with an overall 5-year survival of 77% (95%CI 75-79%). Higher SES, particularly parents' education, was associated with a lower 5-year cumulative mortality. Results varied by type of cancer with no association for leukemia and particularly strong effects for CNS tumor patients, where mortality hazard ratios for the different SES indicators, comparing the highest with the lowest group, ranged from 0.48 (95%CI: 0.28-0.81) to 0.71 (95%CI: 0.44-1.15). We conclude that even in Switzerland with a high quality health care system and mandatory health insurance, socioeconomic differences in childhood cancer survival persist. Factors causing these survival differences have to be further explored, to facilitate universal access to optimal treatment and finally eliminate social inequalities in childhood cancer survival. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.