Survival from colorectal cancer has been shown to be lower in Denmark and England than in comparable high-income countries. We used data from national colorectal cancer registries to assess whether ...differences in the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery could contribute to international differences in colorectal cancer survival.
In this population-based study, we collected data from all patients aged 18–99 years diagnosed with primary, invasive, colorectal adenocarcinoma from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2012, in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden, from national colorectal cancer registries. We estimated age-standardised net survival using multivariable modelling, and we compared the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery by stage and age. We used logistic regression to predict the resectional surgery status patients would have had if they had been treated as in the best performing country, given their individual characteristics.
We extracted registry data for 139 457 adult patients with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma: 12 958 patients in Denmark, 97 466 in England, 11 450 in Norway, and 17 583 in Sweden. 3-year colon cancer survival was lower in England (63·9%, 95% CI 63·5–64·3) and Denmark (65·7%, 64·7–66·8) than in Norway (69·5%, 68·4–70·5) and Sweden (72·1%, 71·2–73·0). Rectal cancer survival was lower in England (69·7%, 69·1–70·3) than in the other three countries (Denmark 72·5%, 71·1–74·0; Sweden 74·1%, 72·7–75·4; and Norway 75·0%, 73·1–76·8). We found no significant differences in survival for patients with stage I disease in any of the four countries. 3-year survival after stage II or III rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was consistently lower in England (stage II rectal cancer 86·4%, 95% CI 85·0–87·6; stage III rectal cancer 75·5%, 74·2–76·7; and stage IV colon cancer 20·5%, 19·9–21·1) than in Norway (94·1%, 91·5–96·0; 83·4%, 80·1–86·1; and 33·0%, 31·0–35·1) and Sweden (92·9%, 90·8–94·6; 80·6%, 78·2–82·7; and 23·7%, 22·0–25·3). 3-year survival after stage II rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was also lower in England than in Denmark (stage II rectal cancer 91·2%, 88·8–93·1; and stage IV colon cancer 23·5%, 21·9–25·1). The total proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery ranged from 47 803 (68·4%) of 69 867 patients in England to 9582 (81·3%) of 11 786 in Sweden for colon cancer, and from 16 544 (59·9%) of 27 599 in England to 4106 (70·8%) of 5797 in Sweden for rectal cancer. This range was widest for patients older than 75 years (colon cancer 19 078 59·7% of 31 946 patients in England to 4429 80·9% of 5474 in Sweden; rectal cancer 4663 45·7% of 10 195 in England to 1342 61·9% of 2169 in Sweden), and the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was consistently lowest in England. The age gradient of the decline in the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was steeper in England than in the other three countries in all stage categories. In the hypothetical scenario where all patients were treated as in Sweden, given their age, sex, and disease stage, the largest increase in resectional surgery would be for patients with stage III rectal cancer in England (increasing from 70·3% to 88·2%).
Survival from colon cancer and rectal cancer in England and colon cancer in Denmark was lower than in Norway and Sweden. Survival paralleled the relative provision of resectional surgery in these countries. Differences in patient selection for surgery, especially in patients older than 75 years or individuals with advanced disease, might partly explain these differences in international colorectal cancer survival.
Early Diagnosis Policy Research Grant from Cancer Research UK (C7923/A18348).
Abstract
Acquiring real-world evidence is crucial to support health policy, but observational studies are prone to serious biases. An approach was recently proposed to overcome confounding and ...immortal-time biases within the emulated trial framework. This tutorial provides a step-by-step description of the design and analysis of emulated trials, as well as R and Stata code, to facilitate its use in practice. The steps consist in: (i) specifying the target trial and inclusion criteria; (ii) cloning patients; (iii) defining censoring and survival times; (iv) estimating the weights to account for informative censoring introduced by design; and (v) analysing these data. These steps are illustrated with observational data to assess the benefit of surgery among 70–89-year-old patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer. Because of the severe unbalance of the patient characteristics between treatment arms (surgery yes/no), a naïve Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the initial cohort severely overestimated the benefit of surgery on 1-year survival (22% difference), as did a survival analysis of the cloned dataset when informative censoring was ignored (17% difference). By contrast, the estimated weights adequately removed the covariate imbalance. The weighted analysis still showed evidence of a benefit, though smaller (11% difference), of surgery among older lung cancer patients on 1-year survival. Complementing the CERBOT tool, this tutorial explains how to proceed to conduct emulated trials using observational data in the presence of immortal-time bias. The strength of this approach is its transparency and its principles that are easily understandable by non-specialists.
Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers ...combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.
We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.
Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Despite persistent reports of socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer survival in England, the magnitude of survival differences has not been fully evaluated.
Patients diagnosed with colon ...cancer (n=68 169) and rectal cancer (n=38 267) in England (diagnosed between January 2010 and March 2013) were analysed as a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Registry data linked with other population-based healthcare records. The flexible parametric model incorporating time-varying covariates was used to assess the difference in excess hazard of death and in net survival between the most affluent and the most deprived groups over time.
Survival analyses showed a clear pattern by deprivation. Hazard ratio of death was consistently higher in the most deprived group than the least deprived for both colon and rectal cancer, ranging from 1.08 to 1.17 depending on the model. On the net survival scale, the socioeconomic gap between the most and the least deprived groups reached approximately -4% at the maximum (-3.7%, 95% CI -1.6 to -5.7% in men, -3.6%, 95% CI -1.6 to -5.7% in women) in stages III for colon and approximately -2% (-2.3%, 95% CI -0.2 to -4.5% in men, -2.3%, 95% CI -0.2 to -4.3% in women) in stage II for rectal cancer at 3 years from diagnosis, after controlling for age, emergency presentation, receipt of resection and comorbidities. The gap was smaller in other stages and sites. For both cancers, patients with emergency presentation persistently had a higher excess hazard of death than those without emergency presentation.
Survival disparities were profound particularly among patients in the stages, which benefit from appropriate and timely treatment. For the patients with emergency presentation, excess hazard of death remained high throughout three years from the diagnosis. Public health measures should be taken to reduce access inequalities to improve survival disparities.
Cancer patients often have pre-existing comorbidities, which can influence timeliness of cancer diagnosis. We examined symptoms, investigations and emergency presentation (EP) risk among colorectal ...cancer (CRC) patients by comorbidity status.
Using linked cancer registration, primary care and hospital records of 4836 CRC patients (2011-2015), and multivariate quantile and logistic regression, we examined variations in specialist investigations, diagnostic intervals and EP risk.
Among colon cancer patients, 46% had at least one pre-existing hospital-recorded comorbidity, most frequently cardiovascular disease (CVD, 18%). Comorbid versus non-comorbid cancer patients more frequently had records of anaemia (43% vs 38%), less frequently rectal bleeding/change in bowel habit (20% vs 27%), and longer intervals from symptom-to-first relevant test (median 136 vs 74 days). Comorbid patients were less likely investigated with colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, independently of symptoms (adjusted OR = 0.70.6, 0.9 for Charlson comorbidity score 1-2 and OR = 0.5 0.4-0.7 for score 3+ versus 0. EP risk increased with comorbidity score 0, 1, 2, 3+: 23%, 35%, 33%, 47%; adjusted OR = 1.8 1.4, 2.2; 1.7 1.3, 2.3; 3.0 2.3, 4.0) and for patients with CVD (adjusted OR = 2.0 1.5, 2.5).
Comorbid individuals with as-yet-undiagnosed CRC often present with general rather than localising symptoms and are less likely promptly investigated with colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy. Comorbidity is a risk factor for diagnostic delay and has potential, additionally to symptoms, as risk-stratifier for prioritising patients needing prompt assessment to reduce EP.
Background
Inequalities in cancer incidence and mortality can be partly explained by unequal access to high‐quality health services, including cancer screening. Several interventions have been ...described to increase access to cancer screening, among them patient navigation (PN), a barrier‐focused intervention. This systematic review aimed to identify the reported components of PN and to assess the effectiveness of PN to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening.
Methods
We searched Embase, PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection databases. The components of PN programmes were identified, including the types of barriers addressed by navigators. The percentage change in screening participation was calculated.
Results
The 44 studies included were mainly on colorectal cancer and were conducted in the USA. All described their goals and community characteristics, and the majority reported the setting (97.7%), monitoring and evaluation (97.7%), navigator background and qualifications (81.4%) and training (79.1%). Supervision was only referred to in 16 studies (36.4%). Programmes addressed mainly barriers at the educational (63.6%) and health system level (61.4%), while only 25.0% reported providing social and emotional support. PN increased cancer screening participation when compared with usual care (0.4% to 250.6% higher) and educational interventions (3.3% to 3558.0% higher).
Conclusion
Patient navigation programmes are effective at increasing participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. A standardized reporting of the components of PN programmes would allow their replication and a better measure of their impact. Understanding the local context and needs is essential to design a successful PN programme.
Background
In the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), breast cancer and cervical cancer are the first and third causes of cancer death among females. The objectives are to ...assess the characteristics of the cervical and breast cancer screening programmes in CELAC, their level of organization, and the association of screening organization and coverage of essential health services.
Methods
Representatives of the Ministries of Health of 33 countries were invited to the CanScreen5 project. Twenty‐seven countries participated in a “Train The Trainers” programme on cancer screening, and 26 submitted data using standardized questionnaires. Data were discussed and validated.
The level of organization of the screening programmes was examined adapting the list of essential elements of organized screening programmes identified in a recently published IARC study.
Results
Twenty‐one countries reported a screening programme for cervical cancer and 15 for breast cancer. For cervical cancer, 14 countries dedicated budget for screening (66.7%), and women had to pay in 3 countries for screening (14.3%), 9 for diagnosis (42.9%) and 8 for treatment (38.1%). Only 4 countries had a system to invite women individually (19.0%). For breast cancer, 8 countries dedicated budget for screening (53.3%), and women had to pay for screening in 3 countries (20.0%), diagnosis in 7 (46.7%) and treatment in 6 (40.0%). One country (6.7%) invited women individually.
There was variability in the level of organization of both cancer screening programmes. The level of organization of cervical cancer screening and coverage of essential health services were correlated.
Conclusion
Large gaps were identified in the organization of cervical and breast cancer screening services. CELAC governments need pragmatic public health policies and strengthened health systems. They should guarantee sustainable funding, and universal access to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, countries should enhance their health information system and ensure adequate monitoring and evaluation.
Early cancer diagnosis is a public health priority, but large proportions of patients are diagnosed with advanced disease or as an emergency, even in countries with universal healthcare coverage. The ...study aimed at examining factors contributing to diagnostic delays and inequalities in cancer care, discussing challenges and opportunities for improving the diagnosis of cancer.
We performed a critical review of the literature examining factors contributing to delays and inequalities in cancer diagnosis, published between 2019-2023, in Europe with a specific focus on Italy.
Disparities in screening, cancer diagnosis and treatment have been reported in many European countries, with poorer outcomes for some population sub-groups. For example, some Northern regions in Italy have six-times higher screening participation versus Southern regions. In 2019 36% of the Italian population aged 50-74 reported colorectal cancer screening, higher than the EU average (33%), but lower than in countries like Denmark (>60%). In Italy, the EU country with the largest percentage of people aged 65+, incident cancers are expected to rise by 19.6% over two decades. Older age is also associated with multimorbidity, with physical and mental health morbidities possibly affecting cancer diagnostic pathways. For example, colon cancer patients with pre-existing mental health conditions were 28% less likely to have a prompt colonoscopy when presenting with red-flag symptoms, according to recent UK research. Covid-19 has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities, with reductions in scheduled surgery and oncological treatments, especially affecting women, older and less educated individuals.
For ensuring appropriate care, it is crucial to better understand how different factors, including physical and mental health morbidities, impact cancer diagnosis. The "NextGenerationEU" program and the "National Recovery and Resilience Plan" (PNNR in Italy) following the Covid-19 pandemic offer opportunities for reducing inequalities, improving cancer care and chronic disease management for ageing populations.
Stage is a key predictor of cancer survival. Complete cancer staging is vital for understanding outcomes at population level and monitoring the efficacy of early diagnosis initiatives. Cancer ...registries usually collect details of the disease extent but staging information may be missing because a stage was never assigned to a patient or because it was not included in cancer registration records. Missing stage information introduce methodological difficulties for analysis and interpretation of results. We describe the associations between missing stage and socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with colon, lung or breast cancer in England in 2013. We assess how these associations change when completeness is high, and administrative issues are assumed to be minimal. We estimate the amount of avoidable missing stage data if high levels of completeness reached by some Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), were achieved nationally.
Individual cancer records were retrieved from the National Cancer Registration and linked to the Routes to Diagnosis and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets to obtain additional clinical information. We used multivariable beta binomial regression models to estimate the strength of the association between socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients and missing stage and to derive the amount of avoidable missing stage.
Multivariable modelling showed that old age was associated with missing stage irrespective of the cancer site and independent of comorbidity score, short-term mortality and patient characteristics. This remained true for patients in the CCGs with high completeness. Applying the results from these CCGs to the whole cohort showed that approximately 70% of missing stage information was potentially avoidable.
Missing stage was more frequent in older patients, including those residing in CCGs with high completeness. This disadvantage for older patients was not explained fully by the presence of comorbidity. A substantial gain in completeness could have been achieved if administrative practices were improved to the level of the highest performing areas. Reasons for missing stage information should be carefully assessed before any study, and potential distortions introduced by how missing stage is handled should be considered in order to draw the most correct inference from available statistics.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Storytelling can enhance stakeholder engagement and support the implementation of the World Health Organization and Pan American Health Organization’s (PAHO) Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer, ...which aims to improve care globally for children with cancer. The Initiative aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, addressing health, education, inequalities and international collaboration. This report describes the design and implementation of a workshop that used storytelling through film to encourage stakeholders in national cancer control plans to engage with the Initiative in its focal countries in Central America, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. A six-step process was used to develop the virtual workshop hosted by PAHO: (i) define the audience; (ii) define the goals of storytelling; (iii) build an appropriate storyline, including choosing a platform and content, and addressing group dynamics and the length of the film; (iv) guide the workshop’s design and implementation with current theoretical frameworks, including the Socioecological Model of Health and the Theory of Change; (v) design interactive group exercises; and (vi) disseminate workshop results. The skills-building component of the day-long workshop included 80 representatives from eight countries in the Region of the Americas, with participants representing pediatric oncology, hospital administration, ministries of health, nonprofit foundations, the scientific community and public health organizations. Outputs from the workshop included (i) a summary report, (ii) an empathy word cloud with live reactions from participants, (iii) qualitative responses (i.e. quotes from participants), (iv) stakeholders’ analyses and (v) a prioritization matrix for country-level strategic activities that could be undertaken to strengthen health systems when caring for children with cancer. The workshop used storytelling through film to try to reduce health inequalities and have a regional impact. Combining art, public health and medicine, the workshop created positive change by sharing real-life experiences. Commitment was fostered among stakeholders through their engagement with the workshop, which aimed to increase their awareness of the need and advocacy to improve health systems and enhance access to health care for this vulnerable population.
PDF
