Search

Background: Those living in rural areas have poorer cancer outcomes, but current evidence on how rurality impacts melanoma care and survival is contradictory.Aim: To investigate the impact of rurality on setting of melanoma excision and mortality in a whole-nation cohort.Design and Setting: Analysis of linked routine healthcare data comprising every individual in Scotland diagnosed with melanoma, January 2005-December 2013, in primary and secondary care.Method: Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between rurality and setting of melanoma excision; Cox proportional hazards regression between rurality and mortality was used, with adjustments for key confounders.Results: In total 9519 patients were included (54.3% [n = 5167] female, mean age 60.2 years [SD 17.5]). Of melanomas where setting of excision was known, 90.3% (n = 8598) were in secondary care and 8.1% (n = 771) in primary care. Odds of primary care excision increased with increasing rurality/remoteness. Compared with those in urban areas, those in the most remote rural locations had almost twice the odds of melanoma excision in primary care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33 to 2.77). No significant association was found between urban or rural residency and all-cause mortality. Melanoma-specific mortality was significantly lower in individuals residing in accessible small towns than in large urban areas (adjusted hazards ratio [HR] 0.53; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.87) with no trend towards poorer survival with increasing rurality.Conclusion: Patients in Scottish rural locations were more likely to have a melanoma excised in primary care. However, those in rural areas did not have significantly increased mortality from melanoma. Together these findings suggest that current UK melanoma management guidelines could be revised to be more realistic by recognising the role of primary care in the prompt diagnosis and treatment of those in rural locations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports developments in health services in Great Britain. Guidelines for early management of myocardial infarction; Training in the basic life support for the families of patients with heart; Need for change in the management of myocardial infarction.

Two letters to the editor are presented in response to the article "UK Cancer Survival Statistics," by V. Beral and R. Peto, published in the August 14, 2010 issue, including a comment that such article does not reflect recent cancer registration practice in Great Britain, and a commendation on the authors' use of acquired data in assessing cancer registration.

Background: Little is known about the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of men living with advanced prostate cancer. We report population-wide functional outcomes and HRQOL in men with all stages of prostate cancer and identify implications for health-care delivery., Methods: For this population-based study, men in the UK living 18-42 months after diagnosis of prostate cancer were identified through cancer registration data. A postal survey was administered, which contained validated measures to assess functional outcomes (urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and obstruction, bowel, sexual, and vitality and hormonal function), measured with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite short form (EPIC-26), plus questions about use of interventions for sexual dysfunction) and generic HRQOL (assessed with the 5-level EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire [EQ-5D-5L] measuring mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression, plus a rating of self-assessed health). Log-linear and binary logistic regression models were used to compare functional outcomes and HRQOL across diagnostic stages and self-reported treatment groups. Each model included adjustment for age, socioeconomic deprivation, and number of other long-term conditions., Findings: 35 823 (60·8%) of 58 930 men responded to the survey. Disease stage was known for 30 733 (85·8%) of 35 823 men; 19 599 (63·8%) had stage I or II, 7209 (23·4%) stage III, and 3925 (12·8%) stage IV disease. Mean adjusted EPIC-26 domain scores were high, indicating good function, except for sexual function, for which scores were much lower. Compared with men who did not receive androgen deprivation therapy, more men who received the therapy reported moderate to big problems with hot flushes (30·7% [95% CI 29·8-31·6] vs 5·4% [5·0-5·8]), low energy (29·4% [95% CI 28·6-30·3] vs 14·7% [14·2-15·3]), and weight gain (22·5%, 21·7-23·3) vs 6·9% [6·5-7·3]). Poor sexual function was common (81·0%; 95% CI 80·6-81·5), regardless of stage, and more than half of men (n=18 782 [55·8%]) were not offered any intervention to help with this condition. Overall, self-assessed health was similar in men with stage I-III disease, and although slightly reduced in those with stage IV cancer, 23·5% of men with metastatic disease reported no problems on any EQ-5D dimension., Interpretation: Men diagnosed with advanced disease do not report substantially different HRQOL outcomes to those diagnosed with localised disease, although considerable problems with hormonal function and fatigue are reported in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy. Sexual dysfunction is common and most men are not offered helpful intervention or support. Service improvements around sexual rehabilitation and measures to reduce the effects of androgen deprivation therapy are required., Funding: The Movember Foundation, in partnership with Prostate Cancer UK., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: International differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival and stage at diagnosis have been reported previously. They may be linked to differences in time intervals and routes to diagnosis. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 (ICBP M4) reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis for patients with CRC and the time intervals from symptom onset until the start of treatment. Data came from patients in 10 jurisdictions across six countries (Canada, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Australia)., Design: Patients with CRC were identified via cancer registries. Data on symptomatic and screened patients were collected; questionnaire data from patients' primary care physicians and specialists, as well as information from treatment records or databases, supplemented patient data from the questionnaires. Routes to diagnosis and the key time intervals were described, as were between-jurisdiction differences in time intervals, using quantile regression., Participants: A total of 14 664 eligible patients with CRC diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 were identified, of which 2866 were included in the analyses., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Interval lengths in days (primary), reported patient symptoms (secondary)., Results: The main route to diagnosis for patients was symptomatic presentation and the most commonly reported symptom was 'bleeding/blood in stool'. The median intervals between jurisdictions ranged from: 21 to 49 days (patient); 0 to 12 days (primary care); 27 to 76 days (diagnostic); and 77 to 168 days (total, from first symptom to treatment start). Including screen-detected cases did not significantly alter the overall results., Conclusion: ICBP M4 demonstrates important differences in time intervals between 10 jurisdictions internationally. The differences may justify efforts to reduce intervals in some jurisdictions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) identified significant international differences in lung cancer survival. Differing levels of comorbid disease across ICBP countries has been suggested as a potential explanation of this variation but, to date, no studies have quantified its impact. This study investigated whether comparable, robust comorbidity scores can be derived from the different routine population-based cancer data sets available in the ICBP jurisdictions and, if so, use them to quantify international variation in comorbidity and determine its influence on outcome., Methods: Linked population-based lung cancer registry and hospital discharge data sets were acquired from nine ICBP jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Norway and the UK providing a study population of 233 981 individuals. For each person in this cohort Charlson, Elixhauser and inpatient bed day Comorbidity Scores were derived relating to the 4-36 months prior to their lung cancer diagnosis. The scores were then compared to assess their validity and feasibility of use in international survival comparisons., Results: It was feasible to generate the three comorbidity scores for each jurisdiction, which were found to have good content, face and concurrent validity. Predictive validity was limited and there was evidence that the reliability was questionable., Conclusion: The results presented here indicate that interjurisdictional comparability of recorded comorbidity was limited due to probable differences in coding and hospital admission practices in each area. Before the contribution of comorbidity on international differences in cancer survival can be investigated an internationally harmonised comorbidity index is required., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)