Search

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]

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]