Elizabeth Tracey

Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995–2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data

Summary Background Cancer survival is a key measure of the effectiveness of health-care systems. Persistent regional and international differences in survival represent many avoidable deaths. Differences in survival have prompted or guided cancer control strategies. This is the first study in a programme to investigate international survival disparities, with the aim of informing health policy to raise standards and reduce inequalities in survival. Methods Data from population-based cancer registries in 12 jurisdictions in six countries were provided for 2·4 million adults diagnosed with primary colorectal, lung, breast (women), or ovarian cancer during 1995–2007, with follow-up to Dec 31, 2007. Data quality control and analyses were done centrally with a common protocol, overseen by external experts. We estimated 1-year and 5-year relative survival, constructing 252 complete life tables to control for background mortality by age, sex, and calendar year. We report age-specific and age-standardised relative survival at 1 and 5 years, and 5-year survival conditional on survival to the first anniversary of diagnosis. We also examined incidence and mortality trends during 1985–2005. Findings Relative survival improved during 1995–2007 for all four cancers in all jurisdictions. Survival was persistently higher in Australia, Canada, and Sweden, intermediate in Norway, and lower in Denmark, England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, particularly in the first year after diagnosis and for patients aged 65 years and older. International differences narrowed at all ages for breast cancer, from about 9% to 5% at 1 year and from about 14% to 8% at 5 years, but less or not at all for the other cancers. For colorectal cancer, the international range narrowed only for patients aged 65 years and older, by 2–6% at 1 year and by 2–3% at 5 years. Interpretation Up-to-date survival trends show increases but persistent differences between countries. Trends in cancer incidence and mortality are broadly consistent with these trends in survival. Data quality and changes in classification are not likely explanations. The patterns are consistent with later diagnosis or differences in treatment, particularly in Denmark and the UK, and in patients aged 65 years and older. Funding Department of Health, England; and Cancer Research UK.

Risk of second cancer among women with breast cancer

A large number of women survive a diagnosis of breast cancer. Knowledge of their risk of developing a new primary cancer is important not only in relation to potential side effects of their cancer treatment, but also in relation to the possibility of shared etiology with other types of cancer. A cohort of 525,527 women with primary breast cancer was identified from 13 population‐based cancer registries in Europe, Canada, Australia and Singapore, and followed for second primary cancers within the period 1943–2000. We used cancer incidence rates of first primary cancer for the calculation of standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of second primary cancer. Risk of second primary breast cancer after various types of nonbreast cancer was also computed. For all second cancer sites combined, except contralateral breast cancer, we found a SIR of 1.25 (95% CI = 1.24–1.26) on the basis of 31,399 observed cases after first primary breast cancer. The overall risk increased with increasing time since breast cancer diagnosis and decreased by increasing age at breast cancer diagnosis. There were significant excesses of many different cancer sites; among these the excess was larger than 150 cases for stomach (SIR = 1.35), colorectal (SIR = 1.22), lung (SIR = 1.24), soft tissue sarcoma (SIR = 2.25), melanoma (SIR = 1.29), non‐melanoma skin (SIR = 1.58), endometrium (SIR = 1.52), ovary (SIR = 1.48), kidney (SIR = 1.27), thyroid gland (SIR = 1.62) and leukaemia (SIR = 1.52). The excess of cancer after a breast cancer diagnosis is likely to be explained by treatment for breast cancer and by shared genetic or environmental risk factors, although the general excess of cancer suggests that there may be additional explanations such as increased surveillance and general cancer susceptibility.

Risk of second primary cancer among patients with head and neck cancers: A pooled analysis of 13 cancer registries.

The objective of the study was to assess the risk of second primary cancers (SPCs) following a primary head and neck cancer (oral cavity, pharynx and larynx) and the risk of head and neck cancer as a SPC. The present investigation is a multicenter study from 13 population‐based cancer registries. The study population involved 99,257 patients with a first primary head and neck cancer and contributed 489,855 person‐years of follow‐up. To assess the excess risk of SPCs following head and neck cancers, we calculated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) by dividing the observed numbers of SPCs by the expected number of cancers calculated from accumulated person‐years and the age‐, sex‐ and calendar period‐specific first primary cancer incidence rates in each of the cancer registries. During the observation period, there were 10,826 cases of SPCs after head and neck cancer. For all cancer sites combined, the SIR of SPCs was 1.86 (95% CI = 1.83–1.90) and the 20‐year cumulative risk was 36%. Lung cancer contributed to the highest proportion of the SPCs with a 20‐year cumulative risk of 13%. Excess second head and neck cancer risk was observed 10 years after diagnosis with lymphohaematopoietic cancers. The most common SPC following a first primary head and neck cancer was lung cancer. However, the highest excess of SPCs was in the head and neck region. These patterns were consistent with the notion that the pattern of cancer in survivors of head and neck cancer is dominated by the effect of tobacco smoking and alcohol drinking.

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.

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.

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

Abstract 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.

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.

Second primary cancers among 109 000 cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

An analysis of other primary cancers in individuals with non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) can help to elucidate this cancer aetiology. In all, 109 451 first primary NHL were included in a pooled analysis of 13 cancer registries. The observed numbers of second cancers were compared to the expected numbers derived from the age-, sex-, calendar period- and registry-specific incidence rates. We also calculated the standardised incidence ratios for NHL as a second primary after other cancers. There was a 47% (95% confidence interval 43–51%) overall increase in the risk of a primary cancer after NHL. A strongly significant (P<0.001) increase was observed for cancers of the lip, tongue, oropharynx*, stomach, small intestine, colon*, liver, nasal cavity*, lung, soft tissues*, skin melanoma*, nonmelanoma skin*, bladder*, kidney*, thyroid*, Hodgkins lymphoma*, lymphoid leukaemia* and myeloid leukaemia. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma as a second primary was increased after cancers marked with an asterisk. Patterns of risk indicate a treatment effect for lung, bladder, stomach, Hodgkins lymphoma and myeloid leukaemia. Common risk factors may be involved for cancers of the lung, bladder, nasal cavity and for soft tissues, such as pesticides. Bidirectional effects for several cancer sites of potential viral origin argue strongly for a role for immune suppression in NHL.

Second malignancies among survivors of germ-cell testicular cancer: A pooled analysis between 13 cancer registries

We investigated the risk of second malignancies among 29,511 survivors of germ‐cell testicular cancer recorded in 13 cancer registries. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were estimated comparing the observed numbers of second malignancies with the expected numbers obtained from sex‐, age‐, period‐ and population‐specific incidence rates. Seminomas and nonseminomas, the 2 main histological groups of testicular cancer, were analyzed separately. During a median follow‐up period of 8.3 years (0–35 years), we observed 1,811 second tumors, with a corresponding SIR of 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57–1.73). Statistically significant increased risks were found for fifteen cancer types, including SIRs of 2.0 or higher for cancers of the stomach, gallbladder and bile ducts, pancreas, bladder, kidney, thyroid, and for soft‐tissue sarcoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer and myeloid leukemia. The SIR for myeloid leukemia was 2.39 (95% CI: 1.41–3.77) after seminomas, and 6.77 (95% CI: 4.14–10.5) after nonseminomas. It increased to 37.9 (95% CI: 18.9–67.8; based on 11 observed cases of leukemia) among nonseminoma patients diagnosed since 1990. SIRs for most solid cancers increased with follow‐up duration, whereas they did not change with year of testicular cancer diagnosis. Among subjects diagnosed before 1980, 20 year survivors of seminoma had a cumulative risk of solid cancer of 9.6% (95% CI: 8.7–10.5%) vs. 6.5% expected, whereas 20 years survivors of nonseminoma had a risk of 5.0% (95% CI: 4.2–6.0%) vs. 3.1% expected. In conclusion, survivors of testicular cancers have an increased risk of several second primaries, where the effect of the treatment seems to play a major role.

Second primary malignancies in patients with male breast cancer.

An international multicentre study of first and second primary neoplasms associated with male breast cancer was carried out by pooling data from 13 cancer registries. Among a total of 3409 men with primary breast cancer, 426 (12.5%) developed a second neoplasia; other than breast cancer, a 34% overall excess risk of second primary neoplasia, affecting the small intestine (standardised incidence ratio, 4.95, 95% confidence interval, 1.35–12.7), rectum (1.78, 1.20–2.54), pancreas (1.93, 1.14–3.05), skin (nonmelanoma, 1.65, 1.16–2.29), prostate (1.61, 1.34–1.93) and lymphohaematopoietic system (1.63, 1.12–2.29). A total of 225 male breast cancers was recorded after cancers other than breast cancer, but an increase was found only after lymphohaematopoietic neoplasms. BRCA2 (and to some extent BRCA1) mutations may explain the findings for pancreatic and prostate cancers. Increases at other sites may be related to unknown factors or to chance. This large study shows that the risks for second discordant tumours after male breast cancer pose only a moderate excess risk.