Sarah Walters

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival

Background:We provide an up-to-date international comparison of cancer survival, assessing whether England is ‘closing the gap’ compared with other high-income countries.Methods:Net survival was estimated using national, population-based, cancer registrations for 1.9 million patients diagnosed with a cancer of the stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast (women) or ovary in England during 1995–2012. Trends during 1995–2009 were compared with estimates for Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Clinicians were interviewed to help interpret trends.Results:Survival from all cancers remained lower in England than in Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden by 2005–2009. For some cancers, survival improved more in England than in other countries between 1995–1999 and 2005–2009; for example, 1-year survival from stomach, rectal, lung, breast and ovarian cancers improved more than in Australia and Canada. There has been acceleration in lung cancer survival improvement in England recently, with average annual improvement in 1-year survival rising to 2% during 2010–2012. Survival improved more in Denmark than in England for rectal and lung cancers between 1995–1999 and 2005–2009.Conclusions:Survival has increased in England since the mid-1990s in the context of strategic reform in cancer control, however, survival remains lower than in comparable developed countries and continued investment is needed to close the international survival gap.

Geographical variation in cancer survival in England, 1991–2006: an analysis by Cancer Network

Background Reducing geographical inequalities in cancer survival in England was a key aim of the Calman–Hine Report (1995) and the NHS Cancer Plan (2000). This study assesses whether geographical inequalities changed following these policy developments by analysing the trend in 1-year relative survival in the 28 cancer networks of England. Methods Population-based age-standardised relative survival at 1 year is estimated for 1.4 million patients diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus, stomach, colon, lung, breast (women) or cervix in England during 1991–2006 and followed up to 2007. Regional and deprivation-specific life tables are built to adjust survival estimates for differences in background mortality. Analysis is divided into three calendar periods: 1991–5, 1996–2000 and 2001–6. Funnel plots are used to assess geographical variation in survival over time. Results One-year relative survival improved for all cancers except cervical cancer. There was a wide geographical variation in survival with generally lower estimates in northern England. This north–south divide became less marked over time, although the overall number of cancer networks that were lower outliers compared with the England value remained stable. Breast cancer was the only cancer for which there was a marked reduction in geographical inequality in survival over time. Conclusion Policy changes over the past two decades coincided with improved relative survival, without an increase in geographical variation. The north–south divide in relative survival became less pronounced over time but geographical inequalities persist. The reduction in geographical inequality in breast cancer survival may be followed by a similar trend for other cancers, provided government recommendations are implemented similarly.

Is sibling rivalry fatal?: siblings and mortality clustering.

Evidence drawn from nineteenth-century Belgian population registers shows that the presence of similarly aged siblings competing for resources within a household increases the probability of death for children younger than five, even when controlling for the preceding birth interval and multiple births. Furthermore, in this period of Belgian history, such mortality tended to cluster in certain families. The findings suggest the importance of segmenting the mortality of siblings younger than five by age group, of considering the presence of siblings as a time-varying covariate, and of factoring mortality clustering into analyses.

Optimal use of staging data in international comparisons of colorectal cancer survival

1 London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health (EPH), London, UK, 2 St Bartholomew ’ s and Royal Marsden Hospitals, London, UK, 3 University of Leeds and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK, 4 Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics in the Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK and 5 Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Belfast, UK