Search

Background: The proportion of cases notified by death certificate only (DCO) is a commonly used data quality indicator in studies comparing cancer survival across regions and over time. We aimed to assess dependence of DCO proportions on the age structure of cancer patients. Methods: Using data from a national cancer survival study in Germany, we determined age specific and overall (crude) DCO proportions for 24 common forms of cancer. We then derived overall (crude) DCO proportions expected in case of shifts of the age distribution of the cancer populations by 5 and 10 years, respectively, assuming age specific DCO proportions to remain constant. Results: Median DCO proportions across the 24 cancers were 2.4, 3.7, 5.5, 8.5 and 23.9% in age groups 15-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, and 75+, respectively. A decrease of ages by 5 and 10 years resulted in decreases of cancer specific crude DCO proportions ranging from 0.4 to 4.8 and from 0.7 to 8.6 percent units, respectively. Conversely, an increase of ages by 5 and 10 years led to increases of cancer specific crude DCO proportions ranging from 0.8 to 4.8 and from 1.8 to 9.6 percent units, respectively. These changes were of similar magnitude (but in opposite direction) as changes in crude 5-year relative survival resulting from the same shifts in age distribution. Conclusions: The age structure of cancer patient populations has a substantial impact on DCO proportions. DCO proportions should therefore be age adjusted in comparative studies on cancer survival across regions and over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background : The proportion of cases notified by death certificate only (DCO) is a commonly used criterion to judge completeness of cancer registration even though it is affected by additional factors, particularly during initial years of newly established registries. Methods : Based on cancer registry data from the United States, we provide model calculations to demonstrate the magnitude and time course of the impact of the following mechanisms on DCO proportions of “young” registries: registration of cancer deaths from patients diagnosed prior to the registration period and delayed registration by death certificate of patients diagnosed but not reported after initiation of registration. Results : DCO proportions of up to ⩾30% can be expected from deaths of previously diagnosed patients during the first year of registration. Although this proportion is expected to gradually diminish over subsequent years, DCO proportions may be dominated for several years by this source, which may still be relevant after 10 or more years of cancer registration for cancers with relatively large proportions of late deaths. Otherwise, however, underreporting during patients’ lifetime is expected to become the predominant source of DCO proportions in the long run. Conclusions : Our results may guide interpretation of DCO proportions of relatively “young” cancer registries. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Period analysis has been shown to provide more up-to-date estimates of long-term cancer survival rates than traditional cohort-based analysis. Here, we provide detailed period estimates of 5- and 10-year relative survival by cancer site, country, sex and age for calendar years 2000–2002. In addition, pan-European estimates of 1-, 5- and 10-year relative survival are provided. Overall, survival estimates were mostly higher than previously available cohort estimates. For most cancer sites, survival in countries from Northern Europe, Central Europe and Southern Europe was substantially higher than in the United Kingdom and Ireland and in countries from Eastern Europe. Furthermore, relative survival was also better in female than in male patients and decreased with age for most cancer sites. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Selective under-ascertainment of cancer patients by cancer registries may bias population-based estimates of cancer patient survival. As prognosis is strongly age related for many forms of cancer, age adjustment of cancer survival rates, which is primarily used to enhance the validity of comparative analyses between cancer populations, might also effectively reduce this type of bias. We empirically assessed this potential “side-effect” of age adjustment using data from the Finnish Cancer Registry. Analyses of five-year absolute and relative survival for patients diagnosed in 1990–1994, and age adjustment to the age structure of patients diagnosed in 1985–1989, were used as examples. Various patterns of selective under-ascertainment were simulated, and the bias in crude and age adjusted five-year survival rates was compared. Age adjusted estimates were less biased in most scenarios, which may be an additional argument for application of age adjustment in the analysis and reporting of population-based cancer survival rates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Up-to-date monitoring of long-term survival is an important task of population-based cancer registries. Period analysis, a new method of survival analysis introduced a few years ago, has been shown to be particularly useful for that purpose. The “classical” period analysis uses a life-table approach which requires both the year and month of diagnosis for implementation in pertinent software programs. However, an increasing number of cancer registries remove the month of diagnosis from their datasets, mainly to ensure the highest possible protection against re-identification of patients. In this paper, we present modifications of period analysis that allow the application of this technique, while almost completely preserving its advantages, in datasets without the month of diagnosis. The modified techniques are illustrated and evaluated using examples from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) programme of the United States (US) National Cancer Institute (NCI), which also has removed month of diagnosis from its most recently released public use database. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Up-to-date monitoring of long-term survival is an important task of population-based and clinical cancer registries. A few years ago, a new method of survival analysis, denoted period analysis, was introduced to provide more up-to-date estimates of long-term survival. However, a prototypical period analysis may not be applicable in situations with delayed recording of incident cases. We introduce herein a hybrid type of analysis that combines elements of both traditional and period analyses which may still be feasible in such settings. The performance of the hybrid type of analysis compared with other design options is empirically evaluated and illustrated for children diagnosed with cancer in the United States. The empirical evaluation indicates that hybrid analysis may be useful to derive more up-to-date estimates of long-term survival compared with traditional design options if there is a strong improvement of survival over time, even in situations with a substantial delay in recording of incident cases. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The measures of cancer prognosis most commonly reported by cancer registries are 5- or 10-year absolute or relative survival rates. Because cancer survival rates often vary by the age of cancer patients, and because the age structure of cancer patients often varies between populations, age adjustment is crucial for comparative analyses of cancer survival rates. However, traditional age adjustment often breaks down for long-term survival rates, particularly for sparse data, and it may provide inconsistent results for relative survival rates, even if age adjustment is made to the study population’s own age distribution. In this manuscript, we propose an alternative approach to age adjustment of both absolute and relative survival rates to overcome both the practical and conceptual problems inherent in traditional age adjustment. We outline the computational realisation of this approach, and we give an empirical illustration of its application using data from the nationwide Finnish Cancer Registry. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Previous population-based studies revealed major variation in survival for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in Europe by age and between different countries and regions, but also a sustained improvement in survival for patients with CRC in recent years. This EUROCARE-5 paper aims to update available knowledge from previous studies and to provide the latest survival estimates for CRC patients from Europe. Methods: The study analysed data of patients diagnosed with CRC from population-based cancer registries diagnosed in 29 European countries. Estimates of 1-year and 5-year relative survival (RS) were derived for patients diagnosed in 2000-2007 by European region, country and age at diagnosis. Additionally to these cohort estimates, time trends in 5-year RS were obtained for the calendar periods 1999-2001 and 2005-2007, using the period analysis methodology. Results: European average 5-year RS for patients diagnosed with colon and rectum cancer was 57% and 56%, respectively. The analyses showed persistent differences in cancer survival across Europe with lowest survival for CRC patients observed in Eastern Europe. The analyses further showed a strong gradient in age-specific survival. Even though the study revealed sustained improvement in patient survival between 1999-2001 and 2005-2007 (absolute increase of 4 and 6 percentage points for colon and rectum, respectively), the differences in the survival for CRC patients observed at the beginning of the millennium persisted over time. Conclusion: Although survival for CRC patients in Europe improved markedly in the study period, significant geographic variations and a strong age gradient still persisted. Enhanced access to effective diagnostic procedures and treatment options might be the keys to reducing the existing disparities in the survival of CRC patients across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In international comparisons of cancer registry based survival it is common practice to restrict the analysis to first primary tumours and exclude multiple cancers. The probability of correctly detecting subsequent cancers depends on the registry’s running time, which results in different proportions of excluded patients and may lead to biased comparisons. We evaluated the impact on the age-standardised relative survival estimates of also including multiple primary tumours. Data from 2,919,023 malignant cancers from 69 European cancer registries participating in the EUROCARE-4 collaborative study were used. A total of 183,683 multiple primary tumours were found, with an overall proportion of 6.3% over all the considered cancers, ranging from 0.4% (Naples, Italy) to 12.9% (Iceland). The proportion of multiple tumours varied greatly by type of tumour, being higher for those with high incidence and long survival (breast, prostate and colon-rectum). Five-year relative survival was lower when including patients with multiple cancers. For all cancers combined the average difference was –0.4 percentage points in women and –0.7 percentage points in men, and was greater for older registries. Inclusion of multiple tumours led to lower survival in 44 out of 45 cancer sites analysed, with the greatest differences found for larynx (–1.9%), oropharynx (–1.5%), and penis (–1.3%). Including multiple primary tumours in survival estimates for international comparison is advisable because it reduces the bias due to different observation periods, age, registration quality and completeness of registration. The general effect of inclusion is to reduce survival estimates by a variable amount depending on the proportion of multiple primaries and cancer site. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The present study is aimed to compare survival and prognostic changes over time between elderly (70–84 years) and middle-aged cancer patients (55–69 years). We considered seven cancer sites (stomach, colon, breast, cervix and corpus uteri, ovary and prostate) and all cancers combined (but excluding prostate and non-melanoma skin cancers). Five-year relative survival was estimated for cohorts of patients diagnosed in 1988–1999 in a pool of 51 European populations covered by cancer registries. Furthermore, we applied the period-analysis method to more recent incidence data from 32 cancer registries to provide 1- and 5-year relative survival estimates for the period of follow-up 2000–2002. A significant survival improvement was observed from 1988 to 1999 for all cancers combined and for every cancer site, except cervical cancer. However, survival increased at a slower rate in the elderly, so that the gap between younger and older patients widened, particularly for prostate cancer in men and for all considered cancers except cervical cancer in women. For breast and prostate cancers, the increasing gap was likely attributable to a larger use of, respectively, mammographic screening and PSA test in middle-aged with respect to the elderly. In the period analysis of the most recent data, relative survival was much higher in middle-aged patients than in the elderly. The differences were higher for breast and gynaecological cancers, and for prostate cancer. Most of this age gap was due to a very large difference in survival after the 1st year following the diagnosis. Differences were much smaller for conditional 5-year relative survival among patients who had already survived the first year. The increase of survival in elderly men is encouraging but the lesser improvement in women and, in particular, the widening gap for breast cancer suggest that many barriers still delay access to care and that enhanced prevention and clinical management remain major issues. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]