Arduino Verdecchia

Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data.

BACKGROUND Traditional cancer-survival analyses provide data on cancer management at the beginning of a study period, and are often not relevant to current practice because they refer to survival of patients treated with older regimens that might no longer be used. Therefore, shortening the delay in providing survival estimates is desirable. Period analysis can estimate cancer survival by the use of recent data. We aimed to apply the period-analysis method to data that were collected by European cancer registries to estimate recent survival by country and cancer site, and to assess survival changes in Europe. We also compared our findings with data on cancer survival in the USA from the US SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) programme. METHODS We analysed survival data for patients diagnosed with cancer in 2000-02, collected from 47 of the European cancer registries participating in the EUROCARE-4 study. 5-year period relative survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was estimated as the product of interval-specific relative survival values of cohorts with different lengths of follow-up. 5-year survival profiles for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 were estimated for the European mean and for five European regions, and findings were compared with US SEER registry data for patients diagnosed in 2000-02. A 5-year survival profile for patients diagnosed in 1991-2002 and a 10-year survival profile for patients diagnosed in 1997-2002 were also estimated by the period method for all malignancies, by geographical area, and by cancer site. FINDINGS For all cancers, age-adjusted 5-year period survival improved for patients diagnosed in 2000-02, especially for patients with colorectal, breast, prostate, and thyroid cancer, Hodgkins disease, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The European mean age-adjusted 5-year survival calculated by the period method for 2000-02 was high for testicular cancer (97.3% [95% CI 96.4-98.2]), melanoma (86.1% [84.3-88.0]), thyroid cancer (83.2% [80.9-85.6]), Hodgkins disease (81.4% [78.9-84.1]), female breast cancer (79.0% [78.1-80.0]), corpus uteri (78.0% [76.2-79.9]), and prostate cancer (77.5% [76.5-78.6]); and low for stomach cancer (24.9% [23.7-26.2]), chronic myeloid leukaemia (32.2% [29.0-35.7]), acute myeloid leukaemia (14.8% [13.4-16.4]), and lung cancer (10.9% [10.5-11.4]). Survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was generally highest for those in northern European countries and lowest for those in eastern European countries, although, patients in eastern European had the highest improvement in survival for major cancer sites during 1991-2002 (colorectal cancer from 30.3% [28.3-32.5] to 44.7% [42.8-46.7]; breast cancer from 60% [57.2-63.0] to 73.9% [71.7-76.2]; for prostate cancer from 39.5% [35.0-44.6] to 68.0% [64.2-72.1]). For all solid tumours, with the exception of stomach, testicular, and soft-tissue cancers, survival for patients diagnosed in 2000-02 was higher in the US SEER registries than for the European mean. For haematological malignancies, data from US SEER registries and the European mean were comparable in 2000-02, except for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. INTERPRETATION Cancer-service infrastructure, prevention and screening programmes, access to diagnostic and treatment facilities, tumour-site-specific protocols, multidisciplinary management, application of evidence-based clinical guidelines, and recruitment to clinical trials probably account for most of the differences that we noted in outcomes.

Cancer survival increases in Europe, but international differences remain wide

The EUROCARE project analysed cancer survival data from 45 population-based cancer registries in 17 European countries, revealing wide international differences in cancer survival. We calculated 5-year relative survival for 1836287 patients diagnosed with one of 13 cancers during the period 1978-1989. The data, from 20 cancer registries in 13 countries, were grouped into four regions: Finland, Sweden, Iceland (Northern Europe); Denmark, England and Scotland (UK and Denmark); France, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Switzerland (Western Europe); Estonia and Poland (Eastern Europe), and broken down into four periods (1978-1980, 1981-1983, 1984-1986, 1987-1989). For each cancer, mean European and regional survival was estimated as the weighted mean of 5-year relative survival in each country. Survival increased with time for all tumours, particularly for cancers of testis (12% increase, i.e. from 79.9 to 91.9%), breast, large bowel, skin melanoma (approximately 9-10%), and lymphomas (approximately 7%). For most solid tumours, survival was highest in Northern Europe and lowest in Eastern Europe, and also low in the UK and Denmark. Regional variation was less marked for the lymphomas. Survival improved more in Western than Northern Europe, and the differences between these regions fell for bowel cancer (from 8.0% for those diagnosed in 1978-1980 to 2% for those diagnosed in 1987-1989), breast cancer (from 7.4% to 3.9%), skin melanoma (from 13.4% to 11.0%) and Hodgkins disease (from 7.2 to 0.6%). For potentially curable malignancies such as Hodgkins disease, large bowel, breast and testicular cancers, there were substantial increases in survival, suggesting an earlier diagnosis and more effective treatment. The persisting regional differences suggest there are corresponding differences in the availability of diagnostic and therapeutic facilities, and in the effectiveness of healthcare systems.

Toward a comparison of survival in American and European cancer patients

Only recently have extensive population‐based cancer survival data become available in Europe, providing an opportunity to compare survival in Europe and the United States.

Mixture models for cancer survival analysis: application to population-based data with covariates.

The interest in estimating the probability of cure has been increasing in cancer survival analysis as the curability of many cancer diseases is becoming a reality. Mixture survival models provide a way of modelling time to death when cure is possible, simultaneously estimating death hazard of fatal cases and the proportion of cured case. In this paper we propose an application of a parametric mixture model to relative survival rates of colon cancer patients from the Finnish population-based cancer registry, and including major survival determinants as explicative covariates. Disentangling survival into two different components greatly facilitates the analysis and the interpretation of the role of prognostic factors on survival patterns. For example, age plays a different role in determining, from one side, the probability of cure, and, from the other side, the life expectancy of fatal cases. The results support the hypothesis that observed survival trends are really due to a real prognostic gain for more recently diagnosed patients.

Survival trends in European cancer patients diagnosed from 1988 to 1999.

We analysed data from 49 cancer registries in 18 European countries over the period 1988-1999 to delineate time trends in cancer survival. Survival increased in Europe over the study period for all cancer sites that were considered. There were major survival increases in 5 year age-adjusted relative survival for prostate (from 58% to 79%), colon and rectum (from 48% to 54% men and women), and breast (from 74% to 83%). Improvements were also significant for stomach (from 22% to 24%), male larynx (from 62% to 64%), skin melanoma (from 78% to 83%), Hodgkin disease (from 77% to 83%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (from 49% to 56%), leukaemias (from 37% to 42%), and for all cancers combined (from 34% to 39% in men, and from 52% to 59% in women). Survival did not change significantly for female larynx, lung, cervix or ovary. The largest increases in survival typically occurred in countries with the lowest survival, and contributed to the overall reduction of survival disparities across Europe over the study period. Differences in the extent of PSA testing and mammographic screening, and increasing use of colonoscopy and faecal blood testing together with improving cancer care are probably the major underlying reasons for the improvements in survival for cancers of prostate, breast, colon and rectum. The marked survival improvements in countries with poor survival may indicate that these countries have made efforts to adopt the new diagnostic procedures and the standardised therapeutic protocols in use in more affluent countries.

Comparative cancer survival information in Europe

Franco Berrino*, Arduino Verdecchia, Jean Michel Lutz, Claudio Lombardo, Andrea Micheli, Riccardo Capocaccia, the EUROCARE Working Group Department of Preventive and Predictive Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, 20133 Milan, Italy National Centre for Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health Promotion, Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Istituto Superiore di Sanita, Viale Regina Elena 299, Rome, Italy Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, National Institute for Cancer Epidemiology and Registration (NICER), University of Zurich, Sumatrastrasse 30, Zurich, Switzerland Focal Point International Affairs Executive, Alleanza Contro il Cancro, IST Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Largo Rosanna Benzi, 10, Genova, Italy Descriptive Epidemiology and Health Planning Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Venezian 1, Milan, Italy

Time trends of breast cancer survival in Europe in relation to incidence and mortality.

Increasing breast cancer survival, observed in most western countries, is not easily interpreted: it could be due to better treatment, more effective treatment due to earlier diagnosis or simply lead‐time bias. Increased diagnostic activity (e.g., screening) can inflate both incidence and survival. To understand interrelations between incidence, mortality and survival trends and their consequences, we analyzed survival trends in relation to mortality and incidence. Starting with observed survival from EUROCARE, mortality from WHO and using the MIAMOD method, we estimated breast cancer incidence trends from 1970 to 2005 in 10 European countries. To smooth out peaks in incidence and survival due to early diagnosis activity, survival trends were assumed similar to those observed by EUROCARE in 1983–1994. The following patterns emerged: (1) increasing survival with increasing incidence and declining or stable mortality (Sweden, Finland); (2) slight survival increase, marked incidence increase and slight mortality decrease (Denmark, the Netherlands and France); (3) increasing survival, marked decrease in mortality and tendency to incidence stabilization (UK); (4) marked survival increase, steady or decreasing mortality and moderate increases in incidence (Spain, Italy); (5) stable survival, increasing incidence and mortality (Estonia). In most countries survival increased, indicating a real advantage for patients when accompanied by decreasing or stable mortality, and attributable to improved cancer care (Sweden, UK, France, Italy and Spain). In Finland (with high survival), the Netherlands and Denmark, increasing mortality and incidence indicate increasing breast cancer risk, probably related to life‐style factors. In Estonia, low and stable survival in the context of increasing incidence and mortality suggests inadequate care.

Comparison of stomach cancer incidence and survival in four continents

The aim of this study was to compare stomach cancer incidence and survival rates between four very distinct areas: Campinas (Brasil), Latin America, Iowa (USA), Northern America, Varese (Italy), Europe and Osaka (Japan) in Asia, and determine which of the differences are due to variations in the case mix and which are due to the care received. A proportional hazards regression method was applied to the relative survival rates to obtain geographical differences that were adjusted for age, gender, period of diagnosis, sub-site and stage. Age, gender, period and stage explained most of the variability between the areas (50-100% excess risk of death with respect to Osaka) in the survival rates for stomach cancer patients. In Iowa and Varese, information on the sub-site fully explained the remaining variability. The large survival differences between the four areas were almost totally due to the different case mixes of the stomach cancer patients. The importance of stage indicates that diagnostic delay may be a major clinical factor affecting survival.

Long-term survival expectations of cancer patients in Europe in 2000–2002

Period analysis has been shown to provide more up-to-date estimates of long-term cancer survival rates than traditional cohort-based analysis. Here, we provide detailed period estimates of 5- and 10-year relative survival by cancer site, country, sex and age for calendar years 2000-2002. In addition, pan-European estimates of 1-, 5- and 10-year relative survival are provided. Overall, survival estimates were mostly higher than previously available cohort estimates. For most cancer sites, survival in countries from Northern Europe, Central Europe and Southern Europe was substantially higher than in the United Kingdom and Ireland and in countries from Eastern Europe. Furthermore, relative survival was also better in female than in male patients and decreased with age for most cancer sites.

Survival of women with breast cancer in Europe: Variation with age, year of diagnosis and country

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignancy among women in developed countries. Prognosis is better than for other major cancers, and an improvement in survival has been reported for several populations in recent decades. Within the framework of EUROCARE, a population‐based project concerned with the survival and care of cancer patients in Europe, we analysed data from 119,139 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1978 and 1985 in 12 countries and followed for at least 6 years. Multiple regression models of relative survival, which take mortality from all other causes in each area into account, were used to estimate the effect of age, period of diagnosis and country on survival. For the comparison between countries, survival rates were age‐standardised to the age structure of the entire study population. Women aged 40–49 years at diagnosis had the best prognosis in all countries and throughout the study period. Women younger than 30 years at diagnosis had a worse prognosis than those aged 30–39. The highest relative survival at 5 years was in Finland and Switzerland (about 74%), intermediate levels were found for Italy, France, The Netherlands, Denmark and Germany (about 70%) and the lowest rates were in Spain, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Poland (55–64%). During the 6 months following diagnosis, survival was highly dependent on age and was sharply lower in women older than 49 years. For women surviving more than 6 months after diagnosis, survival was similar for all ages, although women aged 40–49 still had the better prognosis. The average rate of death from breast cancer fell by about 2.5% for each year of diagnosis between 1978 and 1985. This improvement manifested mainly in younger and older women, for whom survival was initially less good. The largest improvement was seen in Poland (−15% death risk per year). We suggest that the better survival of women aged 40–49 at diagnosis is related to lower levels of circulating sex hormones, resulting in reduced stimulation of tumour cell growth. Early diagnosis may also be important in the peri‐menopausal period due to increased diagnostic attention. Low survival in the United Kingdom may be due to inadequate adherence to consensus treatment guidelines and greater variation in treatment. Int. J. Cancer 77:679–683, 1998.© 1998 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.