Variation In Cancer Survival Research Articles

Finding the health-care expenditure that drives variation in cancer survival

Finding the health-care expenditure that drives variation in cancer survival

Exploring the link between cancer policies and cancer survival: a comparison of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership countries.

Cancer policy differences might help to explain international variation in cancer survival, but empirical evidence is scarce. We reviewed cancer policies in 20 International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership jurisdictions in seven countries and did exploratory analyses linking an index of cancer policy consistency over time, with monitoring and implementation mechanisms, to survival from seven cancers in a subset of ten jurisdictions from 1995 to 2014. All ten jurisdictions had structures in place to oversee or deliver cancer control policies and had published at least one major cancer plan. Few cancer plans had explicit budgets for implementation or mandated external evaluation. Cancer policy consistency was positively correlated with improvements in survival over time for six of the seven cancer sites. Jurisdictions that scored the highest on policy consistency had large improvements in survival for most sites. Our analysis provides an important first step to systematically capture and evaluate what are inherently complex policy processes. The findings can help guide policy makers seeking approaches and frameworks to improve cancer services and, ultimately, cancer outcomes.

Explaining regional variations in colon cancer survival in Ontario, Canada: a population-based retrospective cohort study

ObjectivesRegional variation in cancer survival is an important health system performance measurement. We evaluated if regional variation in colon cancer survival may be driven by differences in the patient population,...

EP04.02-002 International Consensus on Actions to Improve Lung Cancer Survival: Delphi Method in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership

The ICBP is a global partnership of clinicians, academics, data experts and policymakers. It is the first of its kind seeking not only to quantify international variation in cancer survival, incidence and mortality in high-income countries, but also, to explore factors that might influence observed variations. ICBP research demonstrates that international variation in lung cancer survival persists, particularly within early stage disease. There is a current lack of published international consensus on critical contributing components to variation in outcomes and the steps needed to optimise lung cancer services to improve the quality of options for and equitable access to treatment, and ultimately improve survival.

International variation in childhood cancer mortality rates from 2001 to 2015: Comparison of trends in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership countries.

Despite improved survival rates, cancer remains one of the most common causes of childhood death. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) showed variation in cancer survival for adults. We aimed to assess and compare trends over time in cancer mortality between children, adolescents and young adults (AYAs) and adults in the six countries involved in the ICBP: United Kingdom, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden. Trends in mortality between 2001 and 2015 in the six original ICBP countries were examined. Age standardised mortality rates (ASR per million) were calculated for all cancers, leukaemia, malignant and benign central nervous system (CNS) tumours, and non-CNS solid tumours. ASRs were reported for children (age 0-14 years), AYAs aged 15 to 39 years and adults aged 40 years and above. Average annual percentage change (AAPC) in mortality rates per country were estimated using Joinpoint regression. For all cancers combined, significant temporal reductions were observed in all countries and all age groups. However, the overall AAPC was greater for children (-2.9; 95%confidence interval=-4.0 to -1.7) compared to AYAs (-1.8; -2.1 to -1.5) and adults aged >40 years (-1.5; -1.6 to -1.4). This pattern was mirrored for leukaemia, CNS tumours and non-CNS solid tumours, with the difference being most pronounced for leukaemia: AAPC for children -4.6 (-6.1 to -3.1) vs AYAs -3.2 (-4.2 to -2.1) and over 40s -1.1 (-1.3 to -0.8). AAPCs varied between countries in children for all cancers except leukaemia, and in adults over 40 for all cancers combined, but not in subgroups. Improvements in cancer mortality rates in ICBP countries have been most marked among children aged 0 to 14 in comparison to 15 to 39 and over 40 year olds. This may reflect better care, including centralised service provision, treatment protocols and higher trial recruitment rates in children compared to older patients.

Regional variation in cancer survival in Norway

BackgroundCancer services in Norway are intended to provide high quality services and equal access for all citizens. Still, regional variation in cancer survival has been reported. Currently, the public hospitals are organized in Health Trusts (HTs), respectively within one of four regional trusts (RHTs). We aimed to evaluate the extent and rank pattern of regional and intraregional variation in cancer survival systematically over the last three decades. We postulated that organizational reforms during this period might have modulated the variation. MethodsExcess hazard ratios (EHR) of death from cancer were estimated for all individuals identified in The Cancer Registry of Norway as diagnosed with cancer from 1984 to 2018. The model covariates included continuous age at diagnosis, sex, cancer site, stage, 5-year time period of diagnosis and place of residence. In addition to analyses for all cancers combined, selected cohorts with predominantly centralized vs. not centralized primary surgery were evaluated. ResultsFor all cancer sites combined and for the centralized surgery cohort, the range of variation in EHR among the four regions was in the order of 0.10. The ranks among the regions were fairly consistent over time. For the not centralized surgery cohort, the range of inter-regional EHR-variation was in the order of 0.10 – 0.15, with no consistent ranks. Intra-regionally, the ranges of EHR-variation were similar, but with more complex rank patterns. ConclusionsThe range of inter- and intra-regional variation in cancer survival was minor, as compared to the general improvement in cancer survival in the period, with no evidence of effect from organizational reforms on regional variation.

The role of leadership in driving change in cancer survival outcomes in seven high income countries

Abstract Background There is well-established variation in cancer survival across high-income countries with seemingly-similar health systems. There is much research on reasons for these differences, but the role of leadership has been under-researched despite being one of the WHO 'building blocks' that underpin a functioning health system. Leadership is variously defined as including governance, stewardship, responsibility and accountability. As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, this study looked at these diverse aspects of leadership to identify drivers of change and improvement across a range of high-income countries. Methods Cancer strategy documents were analysed from 22 jurisdictions: Australia (3 states), Canada (10 provinces), Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and UK (4 countries). Key informants in 15 of these jurisdictions, representing a range of stakeholders, were recruited through a combination of purposive and 'snowball' strategies, and invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Documents and interview transcripts were analysed using a thematic approach. Results Different facets of leadership emerged: diffused vs centralised (including the central role of a cancer agency in some places); national, regional and local leadership structures; links between primary and secondary care. This study, however, demonstrated a central role for sustained leadership and political commitment, crucial for initiating and maintaining progress, as was a coherent vision that supported the implementation of national policies locally. Clinical leadership emerged as vital for translating policy into action. Conclusions Improving cancer outcomes is challenging and complex but is unlikely to be achieved without effective leadership and sustained political commitment that can create effective co-ordination of care. Key messages Different facets of leadership of the cancer care system emerged as important when exploring the reasons for variations in cancer outcomes in high-income countries. The persistence of these variations is unacceptable. Change will require political commitment and effective leadership, especially by clinicians.

Variation in cancer survival between hospital districts and within them in Finland

Background Monitoring regional variation in population-based cancer survival is useful for assessing equity in national health-care system. This study quantifies variation in survival between municipalities and hospital districts responsible for primary care and for specialised care, respectively, in Finland. Material and methods Five-year relative survival of 11 cancers and close to 700,000 patients was estimated by municipality in Finland over 1962–2016 using hierarchical Bayesian modelling. Variation (i) between hospital districts, (ii) between municipalities within hospital districts, and (iii) between all municipalities (total variation) were quantified by the standard deviation of 5-year relative survival standardised by the average survival level. Results In 2007–2016, the largest variation in 5-year relative survival between all municipalities was in stomach, prostate, kidney and liver cancer and skin melanoma. In male skin melanoma, prostate, and kidney cancer and in male and female pancreatic cancer, there was substantial and statistically significant variation between hospital districts, too. Variation within hospital districts was on average 67% (95% posterior interval [58%,76%]) out of the total variation and had decreased by 18% [2%, 33%] from 1997–2006. Conclusion The decrease in variation within hospital districts suggests that equity in diagnostics and primary care has improved in Finland. However, the variation between hospital districts in skin melanoma, prostate and kidney cancer reflects differences in early diagnostics. In pancreatic cancer, substantial variation between hospital districts may relate to regional differences in the accessibility and the quality of cancer treatments.

Can different definitions of date of cancer incidence explain observed international variation in cancer survival? An ICBP SURVMARK-2 study

BackgroundDifferences in registration practices across population-based cancer registries may contribute to international variation in survival estimates. In particular, there are variations in recorded date of incidence (DOI) as cancer registries have access to different sources of information and use different rules to determine an official DOI. This study investigates the impact of different DOI rules on cancer survival estimates. Materials and methodsDetailed data on dates of pathological confirmation and hospital admittance were collected from three registries participating in the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project (England, Northern Ireland and Norway). Multiple dates of incidence were determined for each cancer patient diagnosed during 2010–2014 by applying three sets of rules that prioritize either: a) histological date, b) hospital admittance date or c) the earliest date recorded. For each set of rules and registry, 1- and 5-year net survival were estimated for eight cancer sites (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung and ovary). ResultsThe mean difference between different DOIs within a country and cancer site ranged from 0.1–23 days. The variation in 1- and 5-year net survival using different DOIs were generally small for all registries and cancer sites. Only for liver and pancreatic cancer in Norway and ovarian cancer in England, were larger 1-year survival differences, of 2–3 % found. ConclusionIn the ongoing discussion of the comparability of survival estimates across registry populations, the use of different DOI definitions can be considered to have a very limited impact.

Estimating multilevel regional variation in excess mortality of cancer patients using integrated nested Laplace approximation

Models of excess mortality with random effects were used to estimate regional variation in relative or net survival of cancer patients. Statistical inference for these models based on the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods is computationally intensive and, therefore, not feasible for routine analyses of cancer register data. This study assessed the performance of the integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) in monitoring regional variation in cancer survival. Poisson regression model of excess mortality including both spatially correlated and unstructured random effects was fitted to the data of patients diagnosed with ovarian and breast cancer in Finland during 1955-2014 with follow up from 1960 through 2014 by using the period approach with five-year calendar time windows. We estimated standard deviations associated with variation (i) between hospital districts and (ii) between municipalities within hospital districts. Posterior estimates based on the INLA approach were compared to those based on the MCMC simulation. The estimates of the variation parameters were similar between the two approaches. Variation within hospital districts dominated in the total variation between municipalities. In 2000-2014, the proportion of the average variation within hospital districts was 68% (95% posterior interval: 35%-93%) and 82% (60%-98%) out of the total variation in ovarian and breast cancer, respectively. In the estimation of regional variation, the INLA approach was accurate, fast, and easy to implement by using the R-INLA package.

Spatial variation in cancer incidence and survival over time across Queensland, Australia

Interpreting changes over time in small-area variation in cancer survival, in light of changes in cancer incidence, aids understanding progress in cancer control, yet few space–time analyses have considered both measures. Bayesian space–time hierarchical models were applied to Queensland Cancer Registry data to examine geographical changes in cancer incidence and relative survival over time for the five most common cancers (colorectal, melanoma, lung, breast, prostate) diagnosed during 1997–2004 and 2005–2012 across 516 Queensland residential small-areas. Large variation in both cancer incidence and survival was observed. Survival improvements were fairly consistent across the state, although small for lung cancer. Incidence changes varied by location and cancer type, ranging from lung and colorectal cancers remaining relatively constant over time, to prostate cancer dramatically increasing across the entire state. Reducing disparities in cancer-related outcomes remains a health priority, and space–time modelling of different measures provides an important mechanism by which to monitor progress.

Place of residence and cancer survival in Germany – regional disparities and possible causes

Abstract: Regional disparities in cancer survival have been disclosed in various countries and have mostly been attributed to socio-economic factors. Here, we summarize the results from recent studies on regional variations in cancer survival in Germany. Results show that the former survival gap of cancer patients in Eastern Germany has been essentially overcome. However, survival disadvantages were observed in most deprived regions in Germany.

Regional variations in cancer survival: Impact of tumour stage, socioeconomic status, comorbidity and type of treatment in Norway.

Cancer survival varies by place of residence, but it remains uncertain whether this reflects differences in tumour, patient and treatment characteristics (including tumour stage, indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidity and information on received surgery and radiotherapy) or possibly regional differences in the quality of delivered health care. National population-based data from the Cancer Registry of Norway were used to identify cancer patients diagnosed in 2002-2011 (n = 258,675). We investigated survival from any type of cancer (all cancer sites combined), as well as for the six most common cancers. The effect of adjusting for prognostic factors on regional variations in cancer survival was examined by calculating the mean deviation, defined by the mean absolute deviation of the relative excess risks across health services regions. For prostate cancer, the mean deviation across regions was 1.78 when adjusting for age and sex only, but decreased to 1.27 after further adjustment for tumour stage. For breast cancer, the corresponding mean deviations were 1.34 and 1.27. Additional adjustment for other prognostic factors did not materially change the regional variation in any of the other sites. Adjustment for tumour stage explained most of the regional variations in prostate cancer survival, but had little impact for other sites. Unexplained regional variations after adjusting for tumour stage, SES indicators, comorbidity and type of treatment in Norway may be related to regional inequalities in the quality of cancer care.

Survival for oesophageal, stomach and small intestine cancers in Europe 1999–2007: Results from EUROCARE-5

BackgroundEuropean regional variation in cancer survival was reported in the EUROCARE-4 study for patients diagnosed in 1995–1999. Relative survival (RS) estimates are here updated for patients diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus, stomach and small intestine from 2000 to 2007. Trends in RS from 1999–2001 to 2005–2007 are presented to monitor and discuss improvements in patient survival in Europe. Materials and methodsEUROCARE-5 data from 29 countries (87 cancer registries) were used to investigate 1- and 5-year RS. Using registry-specific life-tables stratified by age, gender and calendar year, age-standardised ‘complete analysis’ RS estimates by country and region were calculated for Northern, Southern, Eastern and Central Europe, and for Ireland and United Kingdom (UK). Survival trends of patients in periods 1999–2001, 2002–2004 and 2005–2007 were investigated using the ‘period’ RS approach. We computed the 5-year RS conditional on surviving the first year (5-year conditional survival), as the ratio of age-standardised 5-year RS to 1-year RS. ResultsOesophageal cancer 1- and 5-year RS (40% and 12%, respectively) remained poor in Europe. Patient survival was worst in Eastern (8%), Northern (11%) and Southern Europe (10%). Europe-wide, there was a 3% improvement in oesophageal cancer 5-year survival by 2005–2007, with Ireland and the UK (3%), and Central Europe (4%) showing large improvements.Europe-wide, stomach cancer 5-year RS was 25%. Ireland and UK (17%) and Eastern Europe (19%) had the poorest 5-year patient survival. Southern Europe had the best 5-year survival (30%), though only showing an improvement of 2% by 2005–2007.Small intestine cancer 5-year RS for Europe was 48%, with Central Europe having the best (54%), and Ireland and UK the poorest (37%). Five-year patient survival improvement for Europe was 8% by 2005–2007, with Central, Southern and Eastern Europe showing the greatest increases (⩾9%). ConclusionsSurvival for these cancer sites, particularly oesophageal cancer, remains poor in Europe with wide variation. Further investigation into the wide variation, including analysis by histology and anatomical sub-site, will yield insights to better monitor and explain the improvements in survival observed over time.

Explaining variation in cancer survival between 11 jurisdictions in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: a primary care vignette survey

ObjectivesThe International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) is a collaboration between 6 countries and 12 jurisdictions with similar primary care-led health services. This study investigates primary care physician (PCP) behaviour and...

Cancer awareness and socio-economic position: results from a population-based study in Denmark.

BackgroundDifferences in cancer awareness between individuals may explain variations in healthcare seeking behaviour and ultimately also variations in cancer survival. It is therefore important to examine cancer awareness and to investigate possible differences in cancer awareness among specific population subgroups. The aim of this study is to assess awareness of cancer symptoms, risk factors and perceived 5-year survival from bowel, breast, ovarian, and lung cancer in a Danish population sample and to analyse the association between these factors and socio-economic position indicators.MethodsA population-based telephone survey was carried out among 1,000 respondents aged 30–49 years and 2,000 respondents aged 50 years and older using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure. Information on socio-economic position was obtained by data linkage through Statistics Denmark. Prevalence ratios were used to determine the association between socio-economic position and cancer awareness.ResultsA strong socio-economic gradient in cancer awareness was found. People with a low educational level and a low household income were more likely to have a lower awareness of cancer symptoms, cancer risk factors and the growing risk of cancer with age. Furthermore, men and people outside the labour force tended to be less aware of these factors than women and people within the labour force. However, women were more likely than men to lack awareness of the relationship between age and cancer risk. No clear associations were found between socio-economic position and lack of awareness of 5-year survival from bowel, breast, ovarian, and lung cancers.ConclusionsAs cancer awareness has shown to be positively associated with cancer-related behaviour, e.g. healthcare seeking, consideration must be given to tackle inequalities in cancer awareness and to address this issue in future public health strategies, which should be targeted at and tailored to the intended recipient groups.

Socioeconomic deprivation and cancer survival in Germany: An ecological analysis in 200 districts in Germany

Although socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival have been demonstrated both within and between countries, evidence on the variation of the inequalities over time past diagnosis is sparse. Furthermore, no comprehensive analysis of socioeconomic differences in cancer survival in Germany has been conducted. Therefore, we analyzed variations in cancer survival for patients diagnosed with one of the 25 most common cancer sites in 1997-2006 in ten population-based cancer registries in Germany (covering 32 million inhabitants). Patients were assigned a socioeconomic status according to the district of residence at diagnosis. Period analysis was used to derive 3-month, 5-year and conditional 1-year and 5-year age-standardized relative survival for 2002-2006 for each deprivation quintile in Germany. Relative survival of patients living in the most deprived district was compared to survival of patients living in all other districts by model-based period analysis. For 21 of 25 cancer sites, 5-year relative survival was lower in the most deprived districts than in all other districts combined. The median relative excess risk of death over the 25 cancer sites decreased from 1.24 in the first 3 months to 1.16 in the following 9 months to 1.08 in the following 4 years. Inequalities persisted after adjustment for stage. These major regional socioeconomic inequalities indicate a potential for improving cancer care and survival in Germany. Studies on individual-level patient data with access to treatment information should be conducted to examine the reasons for these socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in more detail.

Funnel plots for population-based cancer survival: principles, methods and applications

Funnel plots are graphical tools designed to detect excessive variation in performance indicators by simple visual inspection of the data. Their main use in the biomedical domain so far has been to detect publication bias in meta-analyses, but they have also been recommended as the most appropriate way to display performance indicators for a vast range of health-related outcomes. Here, we extend the use of funnel plots to population-based cancer survival and several related measures. We present three applications to familiarise the reader with their interpretation. We propose funnel plots for various cancer survival measures, as well as age-standardised survival, trends in survival and excess hazard ratios. We describe the components of a funnel plot and the formulae for the construction of the control limits for each of these survival measures. We include three transformations to construct the control limits for the survival function: complementary log-log, logit and logarithmic transformations. We present applications of funnel plots to explore the following: (i) small-area and temporal variation in cancer survival; (ii) racial and geographical variation in cancer survival; and (iii) geographical variation in the excess hazard of death. Funnel plots provide a simple and informative graphical tool to display geographical variation and trend in a range of cancer survival measures. We recommend their use as a routine instrument for cancer survival comparisons, to inform health policy makers in planning and assessing cancer policies. We advocate the use of the complementary log-log or logit transformation to construct the control limits for the survival function.

Variations in Cancer Survival and Patterns of Care Across Europe: Roles of Wealth and Health-Care Organization

Cancer survival varies markedly across Europe. We analyzed variations in all-cancer 5-year relative survival in relation to macroeconomic and health-care indicators, and 5-year relative survival for three major cancers (colorectal, prostate, breast) in relation to application of standard treatments, to serve as baseline for monitoring the efficacy of new European initiatives to improve cancer survival. Five-year relative survival data were from the European cancer registry-based study of cancer patients' survival and care (EUROCARE-4). Macroeconomic and health system data were from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and European Observatory on Health Care Systems. Information on treatments given was from EUROCARE studies. Total national health spending varied widely across Europe and correlated linearly with survival (R = 0.8). Countries with high spending had high numbers of diagnostic and radiotherapy units, and 5-year relative survival was good (>50%). The treatments given for major cancers also varied; advanced stage at diagnosis was associated with poor 5-year relative survival and low odds of receiving standard treatment for breast and colorectal cancer.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership: An international collaboration to inform cancer policy in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) was initiated by the Department of Health in England to study international variation in cancer survival, and to inform policy to improve cancer survival. It is a research collaboration between twelve jurisdictions in six countries: Australia (New South Wales, Victoria), Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario), Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales). Leadership is provided by policymakers, with academics, clinicians and cancer registries forming an international network to conduct the research. The project currently has five modules examining: (1) cancer survival, (2) population awareness and beliefs about cancer, (3) attitudes, behaviours and systems in primary care, (4) delays in diagnosis and treatment, and their causes, and (5) treatment, co-morbidities and other factors. These modules employ a range of methodologies including epidemiological and statistical analyses, surveys and clinical record audit. The first publications have already been used to inform and develop cancer policies in participating countries, and a further series of publications is under way. The module design, governance structure, funding arrangements and management approach to the partnership provide a case study in conducting international comparisons of health systems that are both academically and clinically robust and of immediate relevance to policymakers.