Explore the vast range of titles available.

Assessment of progress in cancer control at the population level is increasingly important. Population-based survival trends provide a key insight into the overall effectiveness of the health system, alongside trends in incidence and mortality. For this purpose, we aimed to provide a unique measure of cancer survival. In this observational study, we analysed trends in survival with population-based data for 7·2 million adults diagnosed with a first, primary, invasive malignancy in England and Wales during 1971–2011 and followed up to the end of 2012. We constructed a survival index for all cancers combined using data from the National Cancer Registry and the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. The index is designed to be independent of changes in the age distribution of patients with cancer and of changes in the proportion of lethal cancers in each sex. We analysed trends in the cancer survival index at 1, 5, and 10 years after diagnosis for the selected periods 1971–72, 1980–81, 1990–91, 2000–01, 2005–06, and 2010–11. We also estimated trends in age-sex-adjusted survival for each cancer. We define the difference in net survival between the oldest (75–99 years) and youngest (15–44 years) patients as the age gap in survival. We evaluated the absolute change (%) in the age gap since 1971. The overall index of net survival increased substantially during the 40-year period 1971–2011, both in England and in Wales. For patients diagnosed in 1971–72, the index of net survival was 50% at 1 year after diagnosis. 40 years later, the same value of 50% was predicted at 10 years after diagnosis. The average 10% survival advantage for women persisted throughout this period. Predicted 10-year net survival adjusted for age and sex for patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2011 ranged from 1·1% for pancreatic cancer to 98·2% for testicular cancer. Net survival for the oldest patients (75–99 years) was persistently lower than for the youngest (15–44 years), even after adjustment for the much higher mortality from causes other than cancer in elderly people. These findings support substantial increases in both short-term and long-term net survival from all cancers combined in both England and Wales. The net survival index provides a convenient, single number that summarises the overall patterns of cancer survival in any one population, in each calendar period, for young and old men and women and for a wide range of cancers with very disparate survival. The persistent sex difference is partly due to a more favourable cancer distribution in women than men. The very wide differences in survival for different cancers, and the persistent age gap in survival, suggest the need for renewed efforts to improve cancer outcomes. Future monitoring of the cancer survival index will not be possible unless the current crisis of public concern about sharing of individual data for public health research can be resolved. Cancer Research UK.

Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types. In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15–84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data. We collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9–9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266–295) and 344 (329–358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392–1591) to 1563 (1534–1592) additional deaths, a 15·3–16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220–1254) to 1372 (1343–1401) additional deaths, a 4·8–5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324–335) to 342 (336–348) additional deaths, 5·8–6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291–3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204–63 229 years. Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer. UK Research and Innovation Economic and Social Research Council.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of the NHS Cancer Plan (2000) and subsequent national cancer policy initiatives in improving cancer survival and reducing socioeconomic inequalities in survival in England.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingEngland.PopulationMore than 3.5 million registered patients aged 15-99 with a diagnosis of one of the 24 most common primary, malignant, invasive neoplasms between 1996 and 2013.Main outcome measuresAge standardised net survival estimates by cancer, sex, year, and deprivation group. These estimates were modelled using regression model with splines to explore changes in the cancer survival trends and in the socioeconomic inequalities in survival.ResultsOne year net survival improved steadily from 1996 for 26 of 41 sex-cancer combinations studied, and only from 2001 or 2006 for four cancers. Trends in survival accelerated after 2006 for five cancers. The deprivation gap observed for all 41 sex-cancer combinations among patients with a diagnosis in 1996 persisted until 2013. However, the gap slightly decreased for six cancers among men for which one year survival was more than 65% in 1996, and for cervical and uterine cancers, for which survival was more than 75% in 1996. The deprivation gap widened notably for brain tumours in men and for lung cancer in women.ConclusionsLittle evidence was found of a direct impact of national cancer strategies on one year survival, and no evidence for a reduction in socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival. These findings emphasise that socioeconomic inequalities in survival remain a major public health problem for a healthcare system founded on equity.

Survival from colorectal cancer has been shown to be lower in Denmark and England than in comparable high-income countries. We used data from national colorectal cancer registries to assess whether differences in the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery could contribute to international differences in colorectal cancer survival. In this population-based study, we collected data from all patients aged 18–99 years diagnosed with primary, invasive, colorectal adenocarcinoma from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2012, in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden, from national colorectal cancer registries. We estimated age-standardised net survival using multivariable modelling, and we compared the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery by stage and age. We used logistic regression to predict the resectional surgery status patients would have had if they had been treated as in the best performing country, given their individual characteristics. We extracted registry data for 139 457 adult patients with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma: 12 958 patients in Denmark, 97 466 in England, 11 450 in Norway, and 17 583 in Sweden. 3-year colon cancer survival was lower in England (63·9%, 95% CI 63·5–64·3) and Denmark (65·7%, 64·7–66·8) than in Norway (69·5%, 68·4–70·5) and Sweden (72·1%, 71·2–73·0). Rectal cancer survival was lower in England (69·7%, 69·1–70·3) than in the other three countries (Denmark 72·5%, 71·1–74·0; Sweden 74·1%, 72·7–75·4; and Norway 75·0%, 73·1–76·8). We found no significant differences in survival for patients with stage I disease in any of the four countries. 3-year survival after stage II or III rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was consistently lower in England (stage II rectal cancer 86·4%, 95% CI 85·0–87·6; stage III rectal cancer 75·5%, 74·2–76·7; and stage IV colon cancer 20·5%, 19·9–21·1) than in Norway (94·1%, 91·5–96·0; 83·4%, 80·1–86·1; and 33·0%, 31·0–35·1) and Sweden (92·9%, 90·8–94·6; 80·6%, 78·2–82·7; and 23·7%, 22·0–25·3). 3-year survival after stage II rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was also lower in England than in Denmark (stage II rectal cancer 91·2%, 88·8–93·1; and stage IV colon cancer 23·5%, 21·9–25·1). The total proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery ranged from 47 803 (68·4%) of 69 867 patients in England to 9582 (81·3%) of 11 786 in Sweden for colon cancer, and from 16 544 (59·9%) of 27 599 in England to 4106 (70·8%) of 5797 in Sweden for rectal cancer. This range was widest for patients older than 75 years (colon cancer 19 078 [59·7%] of 31 946 patients in England to 4429 [80·9%] of 5474 in Sweden; rectal cancer 4663 [45·7%] of 10 195 in England to 1342 [61·9%] of 2169 in Sweden), and the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was consistently lowest in England. The age gradient of the decline in the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was steeper in England than in the other three countries in all stage categories. In the hypothetical scenario where all patients were treated as in Sweden, given their age, sex, and disease stage, the largest increase in resectional surgery would be for patients with stage III rectal cancer in England (increasing from 70·3% to 88·2%). Survival from colon cancer and rectal cancer in England and colon cancer in Denmark was lower than in Norway and Sweden. Survival paralleled the relative provision of resectional surgery in these countries. Differences in patient selection for surgery, especially in patients older than 75 years or individuals with advanced disease, might partly explain these differences in international colorectal cancer survival. Early Diagnosis Policy Research Grant from Cancer Research UK (C7923/A18348).

Background The presence of comorbidity affects the care of cancer patients, many of whom are living with multiple comorbidities. The prevalence of cancer comorbidity, beyond summary metrics, is not well known. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of comorbid conditions among cancer patients in England, and describe the association between cancer comorbidity and socio-economic position, using population-based electronic health records. Methods We linked England cancer registry records of patients diagnosed with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung or Hodgkin lymphoma between 2009 and 2013, with hospital admissions records. A comorbidity was any one of fourteen specific conditions, diagnosed during hospital admission up to 6 years prior to cancer diagnosis. We calculated the crude and age-sex adjusted prevalence of each condition, the frequency of multiple comorbidity combinations, and used logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of having each condition and the probability of having each condition as a single or one of multiple comorbidities, respectively, by cancer type. Results Comorbidity was most prevalent in patients with lung cancer and least prevalent in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Up to two-thirds of patients within each of the four cancer patient cohorts we studied had at least one comorbidity, and around half of the comorbid patients had multiple comorbidities. Our study highlighted common comorbid conditions among the cancer patient cohorts. In all four cohorts, the odds of having a comorbidity and the probability of multiple comorbidity were consistently highest in the most deprived cancer patients. Conclusions Cancer healthcare guidelines may need to consider prominent comorbid conditions, particularly to benefit the prognosis of the most deprived patients who carry the greater burden of comorbidity. Insight into patterns of cancer comorbidity may inform further research into the influence of specific comorbidities on socio-economic inequalities in receipt of cancer treatment and in short-term mortality.

The present study aimed to compare cancer incidence and trends in survival for children diagnosed in Japan and England, using population‐based cancer registry data. The analysis was based on 5192 children with cancer (age 0‐14 years) from 6 prefectural cancer registries in Japan and 21 295 children diagnosed in England during 1993‐2010. Differences in incidence rates between the 2 countries were measured with Poisson regression models. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Incidence rates for Hodgkin lymphoma, renal tumors and Ewing sarcomas in England were more than twice as high as those in Japan. Incidence of germ cell tumors, hepatic tumors, neuroblastoma and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was higher in Japan than in England. Incidence of all cancers combined decreased in Japan throughout the period 1993 to 2010, which was mainly explained by a decrease in registration of neuroblastoma in infants. For many cancers, 5‐year survival improved in both countries. The improvement in survival in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) was particularly dramatic in both countries. However, 5‐year survival remained less than 80% in 2005‐2008 in both countries for AML, brain tumors, soft tissue sarcomas, malignant bone tumors and neuroblastoma (age 1‐14 years). There were significant differences in incidence of several cancers between countries, suggesting variation in genetic susceptibility and possibly environmental factors. The decrease in incidence for all cancers combined in Japan was related to the cessation of the national screening program for neuroblastoma. The large improvement in survival in CML coincided with the introduction of effective therapy (imatinib). For many of childhood cancers, 5‐year survival improved in Japan and England. The improvement in survival in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) was particularly dramatic in both countries.

BackgroundWe aimed to investigate the impact of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival in England on the Number of Life-Years Lost (NLYL) due to cancer.MethodsWe analysed 1.2 million patients diagnosed with one of the 23 most common cancers (92.3% of all incident cancers in England) between 2010 and 2014. Socio-economic deprivation of patients was based on the income domain of the English Index of Deprivation. We estimated the NLYL due to cancer within 3 years since diagnosis for each cancer and stratified by sex, age and deprivation, using a non-parametric approach. The relative survival framework enables us to disentangle death from cancer and death from other causes without the information on the cause of death.ResultsThe largest socio-economic inequalities were seen mostly in adults <45 years with poor-prognosis cancers. In this age group, the most deprived patients with lung, pancreatic and oesophageal cancer lost up to 6 additional months within 3 years since diagnosis than the least deprived. For most moderate/good prognosis cancers, the socio-economic inequalities widened with age.ConclusionsMore deprived patients and particularly the young with more lethal cancers, lose systematically more life-years than the less deprived. To reduce these inequalities, cancer policies should systematically encompass the inequities component.

Patients with comorbidities do not receive optimal treatment for their cancer, leading to lower cancer survival. Information on individual comorbidities is not straightforward to derive from population-based administrative health datasets. We described the development of a reproducible algorithm to extract the individual Charlson index comorbidities from such data. We illustrated the algorithm with 1,789 laryngeal cancer patients diagnosed in England in 2013. We aimed to clearly set out and advocate the time-related assumptions specified in the algorithm by providing empirical evidence for them. Comorbidities were assessed from hospital records in the ten years preceding cancer diagnosis and internal reliability of the hospital records was checked. Data were right-truncated 6 or 12 months prior to cancer diagnosis to avoid inclusion of potentially cancer-related comorbidities. We tested for collider bias using Cox regression. Our administrative data showed weak to moderate internal reliability to identify comorbidities (ICC ranging between 0.1 and 0.6) but a notably high external validity (86.3%). We showed a reverse protective effect of non-cancer related Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) when the effect is split into cancer and non-cancer related COPD (Age-adjusted HR: 0.95, 95% CI:0.7-1.28 for non-cancer related comorbidities). Furthermore, we showed that a window of 6 years before diagnosis is an optimal period for the assessment of comorbidities. To formulate a robust approach for assessing common comorbidities, it is important that assumptions made are explicitly stated and empirically proven. We provide a transparent and consistent approach useful to researchers looking to assess comorbidities for cancer patients using administrative health data.

Worldwide data for cancer survival are scarce. We aimed to initiate worldwide surveillance of cancer survival by central analysis of population-based registry data, as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems, and to inform global policy on cancer control. Individual tumour records were submitted by 279 population-based cancer registries in 67 countries for 25·7 million adults (age 15–99 years) and 75 000 children (age 0–14 years) diagnosed with cancer during 1995–2009 and followed up to Dec 31, 2009, or later. We looked at cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, liver, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, and prostate in adults, and adult and childhood leukaemia. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were corrected by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival, adjusted for background mortality in every country or region by age (single year), sex, and calendar year, and by race or ethnic origin in some countries. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. 5-year survival from colon, rectal, and breast cancers has increased steadily in most developed countries. For patients diagnosed during 2005–09, survival for colon and rectal cancer reached 60% or more in 22 countries around the world; for breast cancer, 5-year survival rose to 85% or higher in 17 countries worldwide. Liver and lung cancer remain lethal in all nations: for both cancers, 5-year survival is below 20% everywhere in Europe, in the range 15–19% in North America, and as low as 7–9% in Mongolia and Thailand. Striking rises in 5-year survival from prostate cancer have occurred in many countries: survival rose by 10–20% between 1995–99 and 2005–09 in 22 countries in South America, Asia, and Europe, but survival still varies widely around the world, from less than 60% in Bulgaria and Thailand to 95% or more in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the USA. For cervical cancer, national estimates of 5-year survival range from less than 50% to more than 70%; regional variations are much wider, and improvements between 1995–99 and 2005–09 have generally been slight. For women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2005–09, 5-year survival was 40% or higher only in Ecuador, the USA, and 17 countries in Asia and Europe. 5-year survival for stomach cancer in 2005–09 was high (54–58%) in Japan and South Korea, compared with less than 40% in other countries. By contrast, 5-year survival from adult leukaemia in Japan and South Korea (18–23%) is lower than in most other countries. 5-year survival from childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is less than 60% in several countries, but as high as 90% in Canada and four European countries, which suggests major deficiencies in the management of a largely curable disease. International comparison of survival trends reveals very wide differences that are likely to be attributable to differences in access to early diagnosis and optimum treatment. Continuous worldwide surveillance of cancer survival should become an indispensable source of information for cancer patients and researchers and a stimulus for politicians to improve health policy and health-care systems. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Toronto, Canada), Cancer Focus Northern Ireland (Belfast, UK), Cancer Institute New South Wales (Sydney, Australia), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, GA, USA), Swiss Re (London, UK), Swiss Cancer Research foundation (Bern, Switzerland), Swiss Cancer League (Bern, Switzerland), and University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY, USA).

BackgroundCancer patients often have pre-existing comorbidities, which can influence timeliness of cancer diagnosis. We examined symptoms, investigations and emergency presentation (EP) risk among colorectal cancer (CRC) patients by comorbidity status.MethodsUsing linked cancer registration, primary care and hospital records of 4836 CRC patients (2011–2015), and multivariate quantile and logistic regression, we examined variations in specialist investigations, diagnostic intervals and EP risk.ResultsAmong colon cancer patients, 46% had at least one pre-existing hospital-recorded comorbidity, most frequently cardiovascular disease (CVD, 18%). Comorbid versus non-comorbid cancer patients more frequently had records of anaemia (43% vs 38%), less frequently rectal bleeding/change in bowel habit (20% vs 27%), and longer intervals from symptom-to-first relevant test (median 136 vs 74 days). Comorbid patients were less likely investigated with colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, independently of symptoms (adjusted OR = 0.7[0.6, 0.9] for Charlson comorbidity score 1–2 and OR = 0.5 [0.4–0.7] for score 3+ versus 0. EP risk increased with comorbidity score 0, 1, 2, 3+: 23%, 35%, 33%, 47%; adjusted OR = 1.8 [1.4, 2.2]; 1.7 [1.3, 2.3]; 3.0 [2.3, 4.0]) and for patients with CVD (adjusted OR = 2.0 [1.5, 2.5]).ConclusionsComorbid individuals with as-yet-undiagnosed CRC often present with general rather than localising symptoms and are less likely promptly investigated with colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy. Comorbidity is a risk factor for diagnostic delay and has potential, additionally to symptoms, as risk-stratifier for prioritising patients needing prompt assessment to reduce EP.