Search

Background: Rare cancers are a challenge to clinical practice, and treatment experience, even in major cancer centres to which rare cancers are usually referred, is often limited. We aimed to study the epidemiology of rare cancers in a large population of several countries., Methods: We analysed survival by age, sex, subsite, and morphology in 57,144 adults with 14 selected rare cancers diagnosed 1983-94. Variations in survival over time and between European regions were also assessed for variations in quality of care. We also estimated the adjusted relative excess risk of death for every rare cancer., Findings: Overall 5-year relative survival was good (ie, >65%) for placental choriocarcinoma (85.4% [95% CI 81.4-89.5]), thyroid medullary carcinoma (72.4% [69.2-75.5]), ovarian germ-cell cancer (73.0% [70.0-76.0]), lung carcinoid (70.1% [67.3-72.9]), and cervical adenocarcinoma (65.5% [64.3-66.6]); intermediate (ie, 35-65%) for testicular cancer at age 65 years or older (64.0% [59.3-68.7]), sarcoma of extremities (60.0% [58.9-61.2]), digestive-system endocrine cancers (55.6% [54.9-56.3]), anal squamous-cell carcinoma (53.1% [51.5-54.8]), and uterine sarcoma (43.5% [42.0-44.9]); low for carcinoma of adrenal-gland cortex (32.7% [28.3-37.2]) and bladder squamous-cell carcinoma (20.4% [18.8-22.0]); and poor for angiosarcoma of liver (6.4% [1.8-11.0]) and mesothelioma (4.7% [4.3-5.2]). Survival was usually better for women than men and poor in those aged 75 years or older. Survival significantly improved over time for ovarian germ-cell cancer, sarcomas of extremities, digestive-system endocrine tumours, anal squamous-cell carcinoma, and angiosarcoma of liver. Survival in northern Europe was higher than in the other geographic groupings for most cancers., Interpretation: Because effective treatments are available for several of the rare cancers we assessed, further research is needed to ascertain why survival is lower in some European countries than in others, particularly in older patients. Audit of best practice for rare cancers with treatment protocols would be useful.

Background: Information on cancer prevalence is of importance for health planning and resource allocation, but is not always available. In order to obtain such data in a comparable way a systematic evaluation of cancer prevalence in Europe was undertaken within the EUROPREVAL project., Patients and Methods: Standardised data were collected from 38 population-based registries on almost 3 million cancer patients diagnosed between 1970 and 1992. The prevalence of 11 specific cancer types was estimated at the index date of 31 December 1992. This study deals with the northern countries Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland and Sweden., Results: There were large differences between these countries, Sweden having the highest prevalence rate of 3050 per 100 000 and Estonia the lowest, 1339 per 100 000. This difference is mainly due to a high proportion of cancers with favourable prognosis such as breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma, better survival and longer life expectancy in Sweden, whereas Estonia has a higher proportion of stomach and lung cancer with poor prognosis, worse survival and much shorter life expectancy, especially for males. For most tumour types, the Nordic countries did better than Estonia. There are indications that cancer patients in Estonia, as well as in Denmark, have a more advanced stage at diagnosis and that the Estonian health-care system is less efficient., Conclusions: Despite many similarities and a common historical background, the northern countries in Europe that participated in the EUROPREVAL study display quite different cancer patterns and prevalence. Reasons for these variations are discussed.

Introduction: Data on the survival of all incident cases collected by population-based cancer registries make it possible to evaluate the overall performance of diagnostic and therapeutic actions on cancer in those populations. EUROCARE-3 is the third round of the EUROCARE project, the largest cancer registry population based collaborative study on survival in European cancer patients. The EUROCARE-3 study analysed the survival of cancer patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 and followed-up to 1999. Sixty-seven cancer registries of 22 European countries characterised by differing health systems participated in the study. This paper includes essays providing brief overviews of the state and evolution of the health systems of the considered countries and comments on the relation between cancer survival in Europe and some European macro-economic and health system indicators, in the 1990s., Overview of the European Health Systems: The European health systems underwent a great deal of reorganisation in the last decade; a general tendency being to facilitate expanding involvement of the private sector in health care, a process which occurred mainly in the eastern countries (i.e. the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). In contrast, organisational changes in the northern European countries (i.e. Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden) tended to confirm the established public sector systems. Other countries, including the UK and some southern European countries (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Malta and Italy) have reduced the public role while the systems remain basically public, at least at present. Our findings clearly suggest that cancer survival (all cancer combined) is related to macro-economic variables such as the gross domestic product (GDP), the total national (public and private) expenditure on health (TNEH) and the total public expenditure on health (TPEH). We found, however, that survival is related to wealth (GDP), but only up to a certain level, after which survival continues to be related to the level of health investment (both TNEH and TPEH). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the TNEH increased during the 1990s in all EUROCARE-3 countries, while the ratio of TPEH to TNEH reduced in all countries except Portugal., Conclusions: Cancer survival depends on the widespread application of effective diagnosis and treatment modalities, but our enquiry suggests that the availability of these depends on macro-economic determinants, including health and public health investment. Analysis of the relationship between health system organisation and cancer outcome is complicated and requires more information than is at present available. To describe cancer and cancer management in Europe, the European Cancer Health Indicator Project (EUROCHIP) has proposed a list of indicators that have to be adopted to evaluate the effects on outcome of proposed health system modifications.

EUROCARE-3 analysed the survival of 1815584 adult cancer patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 in 22 European countries. The results are reported in tables, one per cancer site, coded according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 classification. The main findings of the tables are summarised and commented on in this article. For most solid cancers, wide differences in survival between different European populations were found, as also reported by EUROCARE-1 and EUROCARE-2, despite a remarkable (10%) overall increase in cancer survival from 1985 to 1994. Survival was highest in northern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland), and fairly good in central-southern Europe (France, Switzerland, Austria and Spain). Survival was particularly low in eastern Europe, low in Denmark and the UK, and fairly low in Portugal and Malta. The mix of tumour stage at diagnosis explains much of the survival differences for cancers of the digestive tract, female reproductive system, breast, thyroid, and also skin melanoma. For tumours of the urinary tract and prostate, the differences were explained mainly by differences in diagnostic criteria and procedures. The case mix by anatomic subsite largely explains differences in survival for head and neck cancers. For oesophagus, pancreas, liver and brain cancer, with poor prognoses, survival differences were limited. Tumours, for which highly effective treatments are available, such as testicular cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma and some haematological malignancies, had fairly uniform survival across Europe. Survival for all tumours combined (an indicator of the overall cancer care performance of a nation's health system) was better in young than old patients, and better in women than men. The affluence of countries influenced overall cancer survival through the availability of adequate diagnostic and treatment procedures, and screening programmes.

Background: General practitioners need to play a more active role in the management of patients with breast cancer, specifically in screening programs, counseling, follow-up, palliative care, and psychosocial support. Special training is needed to meet these demands., Methods: An interactive training program resident on CD-ROM was developed. It includes nine cases designed according to the case method and three cases created for group discussions. The program also contains a self-test and an encyclopedia with facts and figures about breast cancer. The program was tested by 20 trainers/trainees in each of four participating countries., Results: The formata, content, and usefulness of the program were ranked highly: generally between 4 and 5 on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high), based on 78 evaluation forms., Conclusion: The program seems to be an adequate tool for GP training.