Search

Measurement of care time intervals is complex, being influenced by many factors. The definition of the care interval monitored can also bias the detection of changes in waits. The implications of using different care interval definitions to report wait times and identify delays in care provision were examined using a retrospective chart review of 637 women with surgically treated breast cancer who were referred to a cancer centre between September 1999 and 2000 or September 2003 and 2004. Overall waits between detection and adjuvant treatment increased by 12 days over the two periods, but their exact location and cause(s) could not be determined at such a low-resolution interval. At higher resolutions of care intervals, reporting the comprehensive sequence of care events, the prolongation was mainly associated with delayed access to surgery (4 days) and delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy (4 days). The latter went unnoticed when waits were reported at intermediate (referral to adjuvant treatment) and low (detection to adjuvant treatment) resolutions. Disease stage and type of first adjuvant treatment consistently and significantly influenced the length of waits. Comprehensive monitoring of the entire care path is essential to effectively prioritize interventions, assess their outcomes and optimise access to cancer care.British Journal of Cancer (2007) 96, 162–168. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603523 www.bjcancer.com Published online 19 December 2006 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global burden of pancreatic cancer has steadily increased, while the prognosis after pancreatic cancer diagnosis remains poor. This study aims to compare the stage- and age-specific pancreatic cancer net survival (NS) for seven high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and United Kingdom., Methods: The study included over 35,000 pancreatic cancer cases diagnosed during 2012-2014, followed through 31 December 2015. The stage- and age-specific NS were calculated using the Pohar-Perme estimator., Results: Pancreatic cancer survival estimates were low across all 7 countries, with 1-year NS ranging from 21.1% in New Zealand to 30.9% in Australia, and 3-year NS from 6.6% in the UK to 10.9% in Australia. Most pancreatic cancers were diagnosed with distant stage, ranging from 53.9% in Ireland to 83.3% in New Zealand. While survival differences were evident between countries across all stage categories at one year after diagnosis, this survival advantage diminished, particularly in cases with distant stage., Conclusion: This study demonstrated the importance of stage and age at diagnosis in pancreatic cancer survival. Although progress has been made in improving pancreatic cancer prognosis, the disease is highly fatal and will remain so without major breakthroughs in the early diagnosis and management., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Data from population-based cancer registries are often used to compare cancer survival between countries or regions. The ICBP SURVMARK-2 study is an international partnership aiming to quantify and explore the reasons behind survival differences across high-income countries. However, the magnitude and relevance of differences in cancer survival between countries have been questioned, as it is argued that observed survival variations may be explained, at least in part, by differences in cancer registration practice, completeness and the availability and quality of the respective data sources., Methods: As part of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 study, we used a simulation approach to better understand how differences in completeness, the characteristics of those missed and inclusion of cases found from death certificates can impact on cancer survival estimates., Results: Bias in 1- and 5-year net survival estimates for 216 simulated scenarios is presented. Out of the investigated factors, the proportion of cases not registered through sources other than death certificates, had the largest impact on survival estimates., Conclusion: Our results show that the differences in registration practice between participating countries could in our most extreme scenarios explain only a part of the largest observed differences in cancer survival.