Laura M. Woods

Trends and socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales up to 2001.

We examined national trends and socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England and Wales during the 1990s, using population-based data on 2.2 million patients who were diagnosed with one of the 20 most common cancers between 1986 and 1999 and followed up to 2001. Patients were assigned to one of five deprivation categories (from ‘affluent’ to ‘deprived’) using characteristics of their electoral ward of residence at diagnosis. We estimated relative survival up to 5 years after diagnosis, adjusting separately in each deprivation category for background mortality by age, sex and calendar period. We estimated trends in survival and in the difference in survival between deprivation categories (‘deprivation gap’) over the periods 1986–90, 1991–95 and 1996–99. We used period analysis to examine likely survival rates in the near future. Survival improved for most cancers in both sexes during the 1990s, and appears likely to continue improving for most cancers in the near future. The deprivation gap in survival between rich and poor was wider for patients diagnosed in the late 1990s than in the late 1980s. Increases in cancer survival in England and Wales during the 1990s are shown to be significantly associated with a widening deprivation gap in survival.

Population-based cancer survival trends in England and Wales up to 2007: an assessment of the NHS cancer plan for England

BACKGROUND The National Health Service (NHS) cancer plan for England was published in 2000, with the aim of improving the survival of patients with cancer. By contrast, a formal cancer strategy was not implemented in Wales until late 2006. National data on cancer patient survival in England and Wales up to 2007 thus offer the opportunity for a first formal assessment of the cancer plan in England, by comparing survival trends in England with those in Wales before, during, and after the implementation of the plan. METHODS We analysed population-based survival in 2.2 million adults diagnosed with one of 21 common cancers in England and Wales during 1996-2006 and followed up to Dec 31, 2007. We defined three calendar periods: 1996-2000 (before the cancer plan), 2001-03 (initialisation), and 2004-06 (implementation). We estimated year-on-year trends in 1-year relative survival for patients diagnosed during each period, and changes in those trends between successive periods in England and separately in Wales. Changes between successive periods in mean survival up to 5 years after diagnosis were analysed by country and by government office region of England. Life tables for single year of age, sex, calendar year, deprivation category, and government office region were used to control for background mortality in all analyses. FINDINGS 1-year survival in England and Wales improved for most cancers in men and women diagnosed during 1996-2006 and followed until 2007, although not all trends were significant. Annual trends were generally higher in Wales than in England during 1996-2000 and 2001-03, but higher in England than in Wales during 2004-06. 1-year survival for patients diagnosed in 2006 was over 60% for 12 of 17 cancers in men and 13 of 18 cancers in women. Differences in 3-year survival trends between England and Wales were less marked than the differences in 1-year survival. North-South differences in survival trends for the four most common cancers were not striking, but the North West region and Wales showed the smallest improvements during 2001-03 and 2004-06. INTERPRETATION The findings indicate slightly faster improvement in 1-year survival in England than in Wales during 2004-06, whereas the opposite was true during 2001-03. This reversal of survival trends in 2001-03 and 2004-06 between England and Wales is much less obvious for 3-year survival. These different patterns of survival suggest some beneficial effect of the NHS cancer plan for England, although the data do not so far provide a definitive assessment of the effectiveness of the plan.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan

Background:Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were observed for many cancers in England during 1981–1999. The NHS Cancer Plan (2000) aimed to improve survival and reduce these inequalities. This study examines trends in the deprivation gap in cancer survival after implementation of the Plan.Materials and method:We examined relative survival among adults diagnosed with 1 of 21 common cancers in England during 1996–2006, followed up to 31 December 2007. Three periods were defined: 1996–2000 (before the Cancer Plan), 2001–2003 (initialisation) and 2004–2006 (implementation). We estimated the difference in survival between the most deprived and most affluent groups (deprivation gap) at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis, and the change in the deprivation gap both within and between these periods.Results:Survival improved for most cancers, but inequalities in survival were still wide for many cancers in 2006. Only the deprivation gap in 1-year survival narrowed slightly over time. A majority of the socioeconomic disparities in survival occurred soon after a cancer diagnosis, regardless of the cancer prognosis.Conclusion:The recently observed reduction in the deprivation gap was minor and limited to 1-year survival, suggesting that, so far, the Cancer Plan has little effect on those inequalities. Our findings highlight that earlier diagnosis and rapid access to optimal treatment should be ensured for all socioeconomic groups.

Cancer survival in England and Wales at the end of the 20th century

Survival has risen steadily since the 1970s for most cancers in adults in England and Wales, but persistent inequalities exist between those living in affluent and deprived areas. These differences are not seen for children. For many of the common adult cancers, these inequalities in survival (the ‘deprivation gap’) became more marked in the 1990s. This volume presents extended analyses of survival for adults diagnosed during the 14 years 1986–1999 and followed up to 2001, including trends in overall survival in England and Wales and trends in the deprivation gap in survival. The analyses include individual tumour data for 2.2 million cancer patients. This article outlines the structure of the supplement – an article for each of the 20 most common cancers in adults, followed by an expert commentary from one of the leading UK clinicians specialising in malignancies of that organ or system. The available data, quality control and methods of analysis are described here, rather than repeated in each of the 20 articles. We open the discussion between clinicians and epidemiologists on how to interpret the observed trends and inequalities in cancer survival, and we highlight some of the most important contrasts in these very different points of view. Survival improved substantially for adult cancer patients in England and Wales up to the end of the 20th century. Although socioeconomic inequalities in survival are remarkably persistent, the overall patterns suggest that these inequalities are largely avoidable.

Geographical variation in life expectancy at birth in England and Wales is largely explained by deprivation

Study objective: To describe the population mortality profile of England and Wales by deprivation and in each government office region (GOR) during 1998, and to quantify the influence of geography and deprivation in determining life expectancy. Design: Construction of life tables describing age specific mortality rates and life expectancy at birth from death registrations and estimated population counts. Life tables were created for (a) quintiles of income deprivation based on the income domain score of the index of multiple deprivation 2000, (b) each GOR and Wales, and (c) every combination of deprivation and geography. Setting: England and Wales. Patients/participants: Residents of England and Wales, 1998. Main results: Life expectancy at birth varies with deprivation quintile and is highest in the most affluent groups. The differences are mainly attributable to differences in mortality rates under 75 years of age. Regional life expectancies display a clear north-south gradient. Linear regression analysis shows that deprivation explains most of the geographical variation in life expectancy. Conclusions: Geographical patterns of life expectancy identified within these data for England and Wales in 1998 are mainly attributable to variations in deprivation status as defined by the IMD 2000 income domain score.

Choice of geographic unit influences socioeconomic inequalities in breast cancer survival.

Socioeconomic differences in age-standardised crude survival for women diagnosed with breast cancer during 1991–1999 in England were influenced by the population of the geographic area used to assign the deprivation index, but not by the choice of index.

Rebuttal to editorial saying cancer survival statistics are misleading

Beral and Peto’s 2010 editorial on cancer survival statistics is unfounded, untenable, and inconsistent.1 Godlee reported in September 2010 that they were then too busy to defend it.2 The editorial is indefensible. It should be withdrawn. The editorial is unfounded. The provocative subtitle, “UK cancer survival statistics are misleading and make survival look worse than it is,” is pure conjecture. Conjecture becomes assertion, then …

Cancer incidence, survival and mortality: explaining the concepts.

Cancer incidence, survival and mortality are essential population‐based indicators for public health and cancer control. Confusion and misunderstanding still surround the estimation and interpretation of these indicators. Recurring controversies over the use and misuse of population‐based cancer statistics in health policy suggests the need for further clarification. In our article, we describe the concepts that underlie the measures of incidence, survival and mortality, and illustrate the synergy between these measures of the cancer burden. We demonstrate the relationships between trends in incidence, survival and mortality, using real data for cancers of the lung and breast from England and Sweden. Finally, we discuss the importance of using all three measures in combination when interpreting overall progress in cancer control, and we offer some recommendations for their use.

Evidence against the proposition that “UK cancer survival statistics are misleading”: simulation study with National Cancer Registry data

Objectives To simulate each of two hypothesised errors in the National Cancer Registry (recording of the date of recurrence of cancer, instead of the date of diagnosis, for registrations initiated from a death certificate; long term survivors who are never notified to the registry), to estimate their possible effect on relative survival, and to establish whether lower survival in the UK might be due to one or both of these errors. Design Simulation study. Setting National Cancer Registry of England and Wales. Population Patients diagnosed as having breast (women), lung, or colorectal cancer during 1995-2007 in England and Wales, with follow-up to 31 December 2007. Main outcome measure Mean absolute percentage change in one year and five year relative survival associated with each simulated error. Results To explain the differences in one year survival after breast cancer between England and Sweden, under the first hypothesis, date of diagnosis would have to have been incorrectly recorded by an average of more than a year for more than 70% of women known to be dead. Alternatively, under the second hypothesis, failure to register even 40% of long term survivors would explain less than half the difference in one year survival. Results were similar for lung and colorectal cancers. Conclusions Even implausibly extreme levels of the hypothesised errors in the cancer registry data could not explain the international differences in survival observed between the UK and other European countries.

Accuracy of cause of death data routinely recorded in a population-based cancer registry: impact on cause-specific survival and validation using the Geneva cancer registry

BackgroundInformation on the underlying cause of death of cancer patients is of interest because it can be used to estimate net survival. The population-based Geneva Cancer Registry is unique because registrars are able to review the official cause of death. This study aims to describe the difference between the official and revised cause-of-death variables and the impact on cancer survival estimates.MethodsThe recording process for each cause of death variable is summarised. We describe the differences between the two cause-of-death variables for the 5,065 deceased patients out of the 10,534 women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1970 and 2009. The Kappa statistic and logistic regression are applied to evaluate the degree of concordance. The impact of discordance on cause-specific survival is examined using the Kaplan Meier method.ResultsThe overall agreement between the two variables was high. However, several subgroups presented a lower concordance, suggesting differences in calendar time and less attention given to older patients and more advanced diseases. Similarly, the impact of discordance on cause-specific survival was small on overall survival but larger for several subgroups.ConclusionEstimation of cancer-specific survival could therefore be prone to bias when using the official cause of death. Breast cancer is not the more lethal cancer and our results can certainly not be generalised to more lethal tumours.