Search

Objective: To examine differences in the relative survival and excess death rates of patients with colorectal cancer in Norway, Sweden and England. Methods: All individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer (ICD10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) C18-C20) between 1996 and 2004 in England, Norway and Sweden were included in this population-based study of patients with colorectal cancer. The main outcome measures were 5-year cumulative relative period of survival and excess death rates stratified by age and period of follow-up. Results: The survival of English patients with colorectal cancer was significantly lower than was observed in both Norway and Sweden. Five-year age-standardised colon cancer relative survival was 51.1% (95% CI 50.1% to 52.0%) in England compared with 57.9% (95% CI 55.2% to 60.5%) in Norway and 59.9% (95% CI 57.7% to 62.0%) in Sweden. Five-year rectal cancer survival was 52.3% (95% CI 51.1% to 53.5%) in England compared with 60.7% (95% CI 57.0% to 64.2%) and 59.8% (95% CI 56.9% to 62.6%) in Norway and Sweden, respectively. The lower survival for colon cancer in England was primarily due to a high number of excess deaths among older patients in the first 3 months after diagnosis. In patients with rectal cancer, excess deaths remained elevated until 2 years of follow-up. If the lower excess death rate in Norway applied in the English population, then 890 (13.6%) and 654 (16.8%) of the excess deaths in the colon and rectal cancer populations, respectively, could have been prevented at 5 years follow-up. Most of these avoidable deaths occurred shortly after diagnosis. Conclusions: There was significant variation in survival between the countries, with the English population experiencing a poorer outcome, primarily due to a relatively higher number of excess deaths in older patients in the short term after diagnosis. It seems likely, therefore, that in England a greater proportion of the population present with more rapidly fatal disease (especially in the older age groups) than in Norway or Sweden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Countries with a similar expenditure on healthcare within Europe exhibit differences in lung cancer survival. Survival in lung cancer was studied in 2001e2004 in England, Norway and Sweden. Methods Nationwide cancer registries in England, Norway and Sweden were used to identify 250 828 patients with lung cancer from England, 18 386 from Norway and 24 886 from Sweden diagnosed between 1996 and 2004, after exclusion of patients registered through death certificate only or with missing, zero or negative survival times. 5-Year relative survival was calculated by application of the period approach. The excess mortality between the countries was compared using a Poisson regression model. Results In all subcategories of age, sex and follow-up period, the 5-year survival was lower in England than in Norway and Sweden. The age-standardised survival estimates were 6.5%, 9.3% and 11.3% for men and 8.4%, 13.5% and 15.9% for women in the respective countries in 2001-2004. The difference in excess risk of dying between the countries was predominantly confined to the first year of follow-up. The relative excess risk ratio during the first 3 months of follow-up comparing England with Norway 2001-2004 varied between 1.23 and 1.46, depending on sex and age, and between 1.56 and 1.91 comparing England with Sweden. Conclusion Access to healthcare and population awareness are likely to be major reasons for the differences, but it cannot be excluded that diagnostic and therapeutic activity play a role. Future improvements in lung cancer management may be seen early in follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Survival from breast cancer is lower in the UK than in some other European countries. We compared survival in England and Norway by age and time from diagnosis. Methods: We included 303,648 English and 24,919 Norwegian cases of breast cancer diagnosed 1996–2004 using flexible parametric relative survival models, enabling improved quantification of differences in survival. Crude probabilities were estimated to partition the probability of death due to all causes into that due to cancer and other causes and to estimate the number of “avoidable” deaths. Results: England had lower relative survival for all ages with the difference increasing with age. Much of the difference was due to higher excess mortality in England in the first few months after diagnosis. Older patients had a higher proportion of deaths due to other causes. At 5 years post diagnosis, a woman aged 85 in England had probabilities of 0.35 of dying of cancer and 0.32 of dying of other causes, whilst in Norway they were 0.26 and 0.35. By eight years the number of “avoidable” all-cause deaths in England was 1020 with the number of “avoidable” breast cancer related deaths 1488. Conclusion: Lower breast cancer survival in England is mainly due to higher mortality in the first year after diagnosis. Crude probabilities aid our understanding of the impact of disease on individual patients and help assess different treatment options. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: In Scandinavia, there is a strong tradition for research and quality monitoring based on registry data. In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, 63 clinical registries collect data on disease characteristics, treatment and outcome of various cancer diagnoses and groups based on process-related and outcome-related variables., Aim: We describe the cancer-related clinical registries, compare organizational structures and quality indicators and provide examples of how these registries have been used to monitor clinical performance, develop prediction models, assess outcome and provide quality benchmarks. Further, we define unmet needs such as inclusion of patient-reported outcome variables, harmonization of variables and barriers for data sharing., Results and Conclusions: The clinical registry framework provides an empirical basis for evidence-based development of high-quality and equitable cancer care. The registries can be used to follow implementation of new treatment principles and monitor patterns of care across geographical areas and patient groups. At the same time, the lessons learnt suggest that further developments and coordination are needed to utilize the full potential of the registry initiative in cancer care.

Several international studies have found that survival from breast cancer is lower in the United Kingdom than in some other European countries. We have compared breast cancer survival between the national populations of England, Norway and Sweden, with a view to identifying subsets of patients with particularly good or adverse survival outcomes. We extracted cases of breast cancer in women diagnosed 1996-2004 from the national cancer registries of the 3 countries. The study comprised 303,657 English cases, 24,919 Norwegian cases and 57,512 cases from Sweden. Follow-up was in 2001-2004. The main outcome measures were 5-year cumulative relative survival and excess death rates, stratified by age and period of follow-up. In comparison with Norway and Sweden, the excess mortality in England was particularly pronounced in the first month and in the first year after diagnosis, and generally more marked in the oldest age groups. Compared with Norwegian patients, 81% of the excess deaths in the English patients occurred in the first 2 years after diagnosis. Our findings emphasise the importance of awareness of symptoms and early detection as the main strategy to improve breast cancer survival in the United Kingdom.