Summary Background Assessment of progress in cancer control at the population level is increasingly important. Population-based survival trends provide a key insight into the overall effectiveness of ...the health system, alongside trends in incidence and mortality. For this purpose, we aimed to provide a unique measure of cancer survival. Methods In this observational study, we analysed trends in survival with population-based data for 7·2 million adults diagnosed with a first, primary, invasive malignancy in England and Wales during 1971–2011 and followed up to the end of 2012. We constructed a survival index for all cancers combined using data from the National Cancer Registry and the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. The index is designed to be independent of changes in the age distribution of patients with cancer and of changes in the proportion of lethal cancers in each sex. We analysed trends in the cancer survival index at 1, 5, and 10 years after diagnosis for the selected periods 1971–72, 1980–81, 1990–91, 2000–01, 2005–06, and 2010–11. We also estimated trends in age-sex-adjusted survival for each cancer. We define the difference in net survival between the oldest (75–99 years) and youngest (15–44 years) patients as the age gap in survival. We evaluated the absolute change (%) in the age gap since 1971. Findings The overall index of net survival increased substantially during the 40-year period 1971–2011, both in England and in Wales. For patients diagnosed in 1971–72, the index of net survival was 50% at 1 year after diagnosis. 40 years later, the same value of 50% was predicted at 10 years after diagnosis. The average 10% survival advantage for women persisted throughout this period. Predicted 10-year net survival adjusted for age and sex for patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2011 ranged from 1·1% for pancreatic cancer to 98·2% for testicular cancer. Net survival for the oldest patients (75–99 years) was persistently lower than for the youngest (15–44 years), even after adjustment for the much higher mortality from causes other than cancer in elderly people. Interpretation These findings support substantial increases in both short-term and long-term net survival from all cancers combined in both England and Wales. The net survival index provides a convenient, single number that summarises the overall patterns of cancer survival in any one population, in each calendar period, for young and old men and women and for a wide range of cancers with very disparate survival. The persistent sex difference is partly due to a more favourable cancer distribution in women than men. The very wide differences in survival for different cancers, and the persistent age gap in survival, suggest the need for renewed efforts to improve cancer outcomes. Future monitoring of the cancer survival index will not be possible unless the current crisis of public concern about sharing of individual data for public health research can be resolved. Funding Cancer Research UK.
AbstractObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the NHS Cancer Plan (2000) and subsequent national cancer policy initiatives in improving cancer survival and reducing socioeconomic inequalities in ...survival in England.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingEngland.PopulationMore than 3.5 million registered patients aged 15-99 with a diagnosis of one of the 24 most common primary, malignant, invasive neoplasms between 1996 and 2013.Main outcome measuresAge standardised net survival estimates by cancer, sex, year, and deprivation group. These estimates were modelled using regression model with splines to explore changes in the cancer survival trends and in the socioeconomic inequalities in survival.ResultsOne year net survival improved steadily from 1996 for 26 of 41 sex-cancer combinations studied, and only from 2001 or 2006 for four cancers. Trends in survival accelerated after 2006 for five cancers. The deprivation gap observed for all 41 sex-cancer combinations among patients with a diagnosis in 1996 persisted until 2013. However, the gap slightly decreased for six cancers among men for which one year survival was more than 65% in 1996, and for cervical and uterine cancers, for which survival was more than 75% in 1996. The deprivation gap widened notably for brain tumours in men and for lung cancer in women.ConclusionsLittle evidence was found of a direct impact of national cancer strategies on one year survival, and no evidence for a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival. These findings emphasise that socioeconomic inequalities in survival remain a major public health problem for a healthcare system founded on equity.
The present study aimed to compare cancer incidence and trends in survival for children diagnosed in Japan and England, using population‐based cancer registry data. The analysis was based on 5192 ...children with cancer (age 0‐14 years) from 6 prefectural cancer registries in Japan and 21 295 children diagnosed in England during 1993‐2010. Differences in incidence rates between the 2 countries were measured with Poisson regression models. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Incidence rates for Hodgkin lymphoma, renal tumors and Ewing sarcomas in England were more than twice as high as those in Japan. Incidence of germ cell tumors, hepatic tumors, neuroblastoma and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was higher in Japan than in England. Incidence of all cancers combined decreased in Japan throughout the period 1993 to 2010, which was mainly explained by a decrease in registration of neuroblastoma in infants. For many cancers, 5‐year survival improved in both countries. The improvement in survival in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) was particularly dramatic in both countries. However, 5‐year survival remained less than 80% in 2005‐2008 in both countries for AML, brain tumors, soft tissue sarcomas, malignant bone tumors and neuroblastoma (age 1‐14 years). There were significant differences in incidence of several cancers between countries, suggesting variation in genetic susceptibility and possibly environmental factors. The decrease in incidence for all cancers combined in Japan was related to the cessation of the national screening program for neuroblastoma. The large improvement in survival in CML coincided with the introduction of effective therapy (imatinib).
For many of childhood cancers, 5‐year survival improved in Japan and England. The improvement in survival in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) was particularly dramatic in both countries.
The presence of comorbidity affects the care of cancer patients, many of whom are living with multiple comorbidities. The prevalence of cancer comorbidity, beyond summary metrics, is not well known. ...This study aims to estimate the prevalence of comorbid conditions among cancer patients in England, and describe the association between cancer comorbidity and socio-economic position, using population-based electronic health records.
We linked England cancer registry records of patients diagnosed with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung or Hodgkin lymphoma between 2009 and 2013, with hospital admissions records. A comorbidity was any one of fourteen specific conditions, diagnosed during hospital admission up to 6 years prior to cancer diagnosis. We calculated the crude and age-sex adjusted prevalence of each condition, the frequency of multiple comorbidity combinations, and used logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of having each condition and the probability of having each condition as a single or one of multiple comorbidities, respectively, by cancer type.
Comorbidity was most prevalent in patients with lung cancer and least prevalent in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Up to two-thirds of patients within each of the four cancer patient cohorts we studied had at least one comorbidity, and around half of the comorbid patients had multiple comorbidities. Our study highlighted common comorbid conditions among the cancer patient cohorts. In all four cohorts, the odds of having a comorbidity and the probability of multiple comorbidity were consistently highest in the most deprived cancer patients.
Cancer healthcare guidelines may need to consider prominent comorbid conditions, particularly to benefit the prognosis of the most deprived patients who carry the greater burden of comorbidity. Insight into patterns of cancer comorbidity may inform further research into the influence of specific comorbidities on socio-economic inequalities in receipt of cancer treatment and in short-term mortality.
We aimed to investigate the impact of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival in England on the Number of Life-Years Lost (NLYL) due to cancer.
We analysed 1.2 million patients diagnosed with ...one of the 23 most common cancers (92.3% of all incident cancers in England) between 2010 and 2014. Socio-economic deprivation of patients was based on the income domain of the English Index of Deprivation. We estimated the NLYL due to cancer within 3 years since diagnosis for each cancer and stratified by sex, age and deprivation, using a non-parametric approach. The relative survival framework enables us to disentangle death from cancer and death from other causes without the information on the cause of death.
The largest socio-economic inequalities were seen mostly in adults <45 years with poor-prognosis cancers. In this age group, the most deprived patients with lung, pancreatic and oesophageal cancer lost up to 6 additional months within 3 years since diagnosis than the least deprived. For most moderate/good prognosis cancers, the socio-economic inequalities widened with age.
More deprived patients and particularly the young with more lethal cancers, lose systematically more life-years than the less deprived. To reduce these inequalities, cancer policies should systematically encompass the inequities component.
Patients with comorbidities do not receive optimal treatment for their cancer, leading to lower cancer survival. Information on individual comorbidities is not straightforward to derive from ...population-based administrative health datasets. We described the development of a reproducible algorithm to extract the individual Charlson index comorbidities from such data. We illustrated the algorithm with 1,789 laryngeal cancer patients diagnosed in England in 2013. We aimed to clearly set out and advocate the time-related assumptions specified in the algorithm by providing empirical evidence for them.
Comorbidities were assessed from hospital records in the ten years preceding cancer diagnosis and internal reliability of the hospital records was checked. Data were right-truncated 6 or 12 months prior to cancer diagnosis to avoid inclusion of potentially cancer-related comorbidities. We tested for collider bias using Cox regression.
Our administrative data showed weak to moderate internal reliability to identify comorbidities (ICC ranging between 0.1 and 0.6) but a notably high external validity (86.3%). We showed a reverse protective effect of non-cancer related Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) when the effect is split into cancer and non-cancer related COPD (Age-adjusted HR: 0.95, 95% CI:0.7-1.28 for non-cancer related comorbidities). Furthermore, we showed that a window of 6 years before diagnosis is an optimal period for the assessment of comorbidities.
To formulate a robust approach for assessing common comorbidities, it is important that assumptions made are explicitly stated and empirically proven. We provide a transparent and consistent approach useful to researchers looking to assess comorbidities for cancer patients using administrative health data.
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.
The authors consider whether differences in stage at diagnosis could explain the variation in lung cancer survival between six developed countries in 2004-2007.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One in three colon cancers are diagnosed as an emergency, which is associated with worse cancer outcomes. Chronic conditions (comorbidities) affect large proportions of adults and they might ...influence the risk of emergency presentations (EP).
We aimed to evaluate the effect of specific pre-existing comorbidities on the risk of colon cancer being diagnosed following an EP rather than through non-emergency routes. The cohort study included 5745 colon cancer patients diagnosed in England 2005-2010, with individually-linked cancer registry, primary and secondary care data. In addition to multivariable analyses we also used potential-outcomes methods.
Colon cancer patients with comorbidities consulted their GP more frequently with cancer symptoms during the pre-diagnostic year, compared with non-comorbid cancer patients. EP occurred more frequently in patients with 'serious' or complex comorbidities (diabetes, cardiac and respiratory diseases) diagnosed/treated in hospital during the years pre-cancer diagnosis (43% EP in comorbid versus 27% in non-comorbid individuals; multivariable analysis Odds Ratio (OR), controlling for socio-demographic factors and symptoms: men OR = 2.40; 95% CI 2.0-2.9 and women OR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.6-2.4. Among women younger than 60, gynaecological (OR = 3.41; 95% CI 1.2-9.9) or recent onset gastro-intestinal conditions (OR = 2.84; 95% CI 1.1-7.7) increased the risk of EP. In contrast, primary care visits for hypertension monitoring decreased EPs for both genders.
Patients with comorbidities have a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer as an emergency, although they consult more frequently with cancer symptoms during the year pre-cancer diagnosis. This suggests that comorbidities may interfere with diagnostic reasoning or investigations due to 'competing demands' or because they provide 'alternative explanations'. In contrast, the management of chronic risk factors such as hypertension may offer opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Interventions are needed to support the diagnostic process in comorbid patients. Appropriate guidelines and diagnostic services to support the evaluation of new or changing symptoms in comorbid patients may be useful.
PDF
