1
|
Youlden DR, Baade PD, Moore AS, Pole JD, Valery PC, Aitken JF. Childhood cancer survival and avoided deaths in Australia, 1983-2016. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2023; 37:81-91. [PMID: 35672573 PMCID: PMC10084119 DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12895] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Revised: 03/22/2022] [Accepted: 04/05/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Large improvements in childhood cancer survival have been reported over recent decades. Data from cancer registries have the advantage of providing a 'whole of population' approach to gauge the success of cancer control efforts. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate recent survival estimates for children diagnosed with cancer Australia and to examine the extent of changes in survival over the last 35 years. For the first time, we also estimated the number of deaths among Australian children that were potentially avoided due to improvements in survival. METHODS A retrospective, population-based cohort study design was used. Case information was extracted from the Australian Childhood Cancer Registry for 1983-2016, with follow-up to 31 December 2017. Eligible children were aged 0-14 with a basis of diagnosis other than autopsy or death certificate only. Five-year relative survival was calculated using the semi-complete cohort method for three diagnosis periods (1983-1994, 1995-2006 and 2007-2016), and changes in survival over time were assessed via flexible parametric models. Avoided deaths within 5 years for those diagnosed between 1995 and 2016 were estimated under the assumption that survival rates remained the same as for 1983-1994. RESULTS Overall 5-year survival within the study cohort (n = 20,871) increased from 72.8% between 1983 and1994 to 86.1% between 2007 and 2016, equating to an adjusted excess mortality hazard ratio of 1.82 (95% confidence interval 1.67, 1.97). Most cancers showed improvements in survival; other gliomas, hepatoblastoma and osteosarcoma were exceptions. Among children diagnosed between 1995 and 2016, 38.7% of expected deaths within 5 years of diagnosis (n = 1537 of 3970) were avoided due to temporal improvements in survival. CONCLUSIONS Survival for childhood cancer has continued to improve over recent years, thanks mainly to ongoing progress in treatment development combined with improved supportive care. Providing innovative measures of survival, such as avoided deaths, may assist with understanding outcome data produced by cancer registries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danny R Youlden
- Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
| | - Peter D Baade
- Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.,School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Andrew S Moore
- Oncology Service, Queensland Children's Hospital, Children's Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Child Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Jason D Pole
- Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Patricia C Valery
- Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Joanne F Aitken
- Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Institute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Aye PS, Win SS, Tin Tin S, Elwood JM. Comparison of Cancer Mortality and Incidence Between New Zealand and Australia and Reflection on Differences in Cancer Care: An Ecological Cross-Sectional Study of 2014-2018. Cancer Control 2023; 30:10732748231152330. [PMID: 37150819 PMCID: PMC10170599 DOI: 10.1177/10732748231152330] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite many background similarities, New Zealand showed excess cancer deaths compared to Australia in previous studies. This study extends this comparison using the most recent data of 2014-2018. METHODS This study used publicly available cancer mortality and incidence data of New Zealand Ministry of Health and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and resident population data of Statistics New Zealand. Australian cancer mortality and incidence rates were applied to New Zealand population, by site of cancer, year, age and sex, to estimate the expected numbers, which were compared with the New Zealand observed numbers. RESULTS For total cancers in 2014-2018, New Zealand had 780 excess deaths in women (17.1% of the annual total 4549; 95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-18.4%), and 281 excess deaths in men (5.5% of the annual total 5105; 95% CI 4.3-6.7%) compared to Australia. The excess was contributed by many major cancers including colorectal, melanoma, and stomach cancer in both sexes; lung, uterine, and breast cancer in women, and prostate cancer in men. New Zealand's total cancer incidences were lower than those expected from Australia's in both women and men: average annual difference of 419 cases (-3.6% of the annual total 11 505; 95% CI -4.5 to -2.8%), and 1485 (-11.7% of the annual total 12 669; 95% CI -12.5 to -10.9%), respectively. Comparing time periods, the excesses in total cancer deaths in women were 15.1% in 2000-07, and 17.5% in 1996-1997; and in men 4.7% in 2000-2007 and 5.6% in 1996-1997. The differences by time period were non-significant. CONCLUSION Excess mortality from all cancers combined and several common cancers in New Zealand, compared to Australia, persisted in 2014-2018, being similar to excesses in 2000-2007 and 1996-1997. It cannot be explained by differences in incidence, but may be attributable to various aspects of health systems governance and performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Phyu Sin Aye
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Shwe Sin Win
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Sandar Tin Tin
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - J Mark Elwood
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
McLeod M, Sandiford P, Kvizhinadze G, Bartholomew K, Crengle S. Impact of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer on ethnic health inequities in New Zealand: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e037145. [PMID: 32973060 PMCID: PMC7517554 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037145] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE There are large inequities in the lung cancer burden for the Indigenous Māori population of New Zealand. We model the potential lifetime health gains, equity impacts and cost-effectiveness of a national low-dose CT (LDCT) screening programme for lung cancer in smokers aged 55-74 years with a 30 pack-year history, and for formers smokers who have quit within the last 15 years. DESIGN A Markov macrosimulation model estimated: health benefits (health-adjusted life-years (HALYs)), costs and cost-effectiveness of biennial LDCT screening. Input parameters came from literature and NZ-linked health datasets. SETTING New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS Population aged 55-74 years in 2011. INTERVENTIONS Biennial LDCT screening for lung cancer compared with usual care. OUTCOME MEASURES Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated using the average difference in costs and HALYs between the screened and the unscreened populations. Equity analyses included substituting non-Māori values for Māori values of background morbidity, mortality and stage-specific survival. Changes in inequities in lung cancer survival and 'health-adjusted life expectancy' (HALE) were measured. RESULTS LDCT screening in NZ is likely to be cost-effective for the total population: NZ$34 400 per HALY gained (95% uncertainty interval NZ$27 500 to NZ$42 900) and for Māori separately (using a threshold of gross domestic product per capita NZ$45 000). Health gains per capita for Māori females were twice that for non-Māori females and 25% greater for Māori males compared with non-Māori males. LDCT screening will narrow absolute inequities in HALE and lung cancer mortality for Māori, but will slightly increase relative inequities in mortality from lung cancer (compared with non-Māori) due to differential stage-specific survival. CONCLUSION A national biennial LDCT lung cancer screening programme in New Zealand is likely to be cost-effective, will improve total population health and reduce health inequities for Māori. Attention must be paid to addressing ethnic inequities in stage-specific lung cancer survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa McLeod
- Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Peter Sandiford
- Waitemata District Health Board, Takapuna, New Zealand
- Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | | | - Sue Crengle
- Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dasgupta P, Cramb SM, Kou K, Yu XQ, Baade PD. Quantifying the Number of Cancer Deaths Avoided Due to Improvements in Cancer Survival since the 1980s in the Australian Population, 1985-2014. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020; 29:1825-1831. [PMID: 32699079 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-0299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2020] [Revised: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 07/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study quantifies the number of potentially "avoided"cancer deaths due to differences in 10-year relative survival between three time periods, reflecting temporal improvements in cancer diagnostic and/or treatment practices in Australia. METHODS National population-based cohort of 2,307,565 Australians ages 15 to 89 years, diagnosed with a primary invasive cancer from 1985 to 2014 with mortality follow-up to December 31, 2015. Excess mortality rates and crude probabilities of cancer deaths were estimated using flexible parametric relative survival models. Crude probabilities were then used to calculate "avoided cancer deaths" (reduced number of cancer deaths within 10 years of diagnosis due to survival changes since 1985-1994) for all cancers and 13 leading cancer types. RESULTS For each cancer type, excess mortality (in the cancer cohort vs. the expected population mortality) was significantly lower for more recently diagnosed persons. For all cancers combined, the number of "avoided cancer deaths" (vs. 1985-1994) was 4,877 (1995-2004) and 11,385 (2005-2014) among males. Prostate (1995-2004: 2,144; 2005-2014: 5,099) and female breast cancer (1,127 and 2,048) had the highest number of such deaths, whereas <400 were avoided for pancreatic or lung cancers across each period. CONCLUSIONS Screening and early detection likely contributed to the high number of "avoided cancer deaths" for prostate and female breast cancer, whereas early detection remains difficult for lung and pancreatic cancers, highlighting the need for improved preventive and screening measures. IMPACT Absolute measures such as "avoided cancer deaths" can provide a more tangible estimate of the improvements in cancer survival than standard net survival measures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paramita Dasgupta
- Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Susanna M Cramb
- Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Kou Kou
- Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Xue Qin Yu
- Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.,Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Peter D Baade
- Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. .,Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.,School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ellis L, Belot A, Rachet B, Coleman MP. The Mortality-to-Incidence Ratio Is Not a Valid Proxy for Cancer Survival. J Glob Oncol 2019; 5:1-9. [PMID: 31070980 PMCID: PMC6550058 DOI: 10.1200/jgo.19.00038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The ratio of cancer mortality and cancer incidence rates in a population has conventionally been used as an indicator of the completeness of cancer registration. More recently, the complement of the mortality-to-incidence ratio (1-M/I) has increasingly been presented as a surrogate for cancer survival. We discuss why this is mistaken in principle and misleading in practice. METHODS We provide an empirical assessment of the extent to which trends in the 1-M/I ratio reflect trends in cancer survival. We used national cancer incidence, mortality and survival data in England to compare trends in both the 1-M/I ratio and net survival at 1, 5, and 10 years for 19 cancers in men and 20 cancers in women over the 29-year period from 1981 to 2009. RESULTS The absolute difference between the 1-M/I ratio and 5-year net survival for 2009 was less than 5% for only 12 of the 39 cancer/sex combinations examined. For an additional 12, the 1-M/I ratio differed from 5-year net survival by at least 15%. The comparison is also unstable over time; thus, even when differences were small for 2009, the difference between 5-year net survival and the 1-M/I ratio had changed dramatically for most cancers between 1981 and 2009. CONCLUSION The 1-M/I ratio lacks any theoretical basis as a proxy for cancer survival. It is not a valid proxy for cancer survival in practice, either, whether at 5 years or at any other time interval since diagnosis. It has none of the useful properties of a population-based survival estimate. It should not be used as a surrogate for cancer survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Libby Ellis
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Aurélien Belot
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Bernard Rachet
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Michel P. Coleman
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Karunasinghe N, Ambs S, Wang A, Tang W, Zhu S, Dorsey TH, Goudie M, Masters JG, Ferguson LR. Influence of lifestyle and genetic variants in the aldo-keto reductase 1C3 rs12529 polymorphism in high-risk prostate cancer detection variability assessed between US and New Zealand cohorts. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0199122. [PMID: 29920533 PMCID: PMC6007906 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/18/2018] [Accepted: 06/03/2018] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) based prostate cancer (PC) screening is currently being debated. The current assessment is to understand the variability of detecting high-risk PC in a NZ cohort in comparison to a US cohort with better PSA screening facilities. Aldo-keto reductase 1C3 (AKR1C3) is known for multiple functions with a potential to regulate subsequent PSA levels. Therefore, we wish to understand the influence of tobacco smoking and the AKR1C3 rs12529 gene polymorphism in this variability. Method NZ cohort (n = 376) consisted of 94% Caucasians while the US cohort consisted of African Americans (AA), n = 202, and European Americans (EA), n = 232. PSA level, PC grade and stage at diagnosis were collected from hospital databases for assigning high-risk PC status. Tobacco smoking status and the AKR1C3 rs12529 SNP genotype were considered as confounding variables. Variation of the cumulative % high-risk PC (outcome variable) with increasing PSA intervals (exposure factor) was compared between the cohorts using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Comparisons were carried out with and without stratifications made using confounding variables. Results NZ cohort has been diagnosed at a significantly higher mean age (66.67± (8.08) y) compared to both AA (62.65±8.17y) and EA (64.83+8.56y); median PSA (NZ 8.90ng/ml compared to AA 6.86ng/ml and EA 5.80ng/ml); and Gleason sum (NZ (7) compared EA (6)) (p<0.05). The cumulative % high-risk PC detection shows NZ cohort with a significantly lower diagnosis rates at PSA levels between >6 - <10ng/ml compared to both US groups (p<0.05). These were further compounded significantly by smoking status and genetics. Conclusions High-risk PCs recorded at higher PSA levels in NZ could be due to factors including lower levels of PSA screening and subsequent specialist referrals for biopsies. These consequences could be pronounced among NZ ever smokers carrying the AKR1C3 rs12529 G alleles making them a group that requires increased PSA screening attention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nishi Karunasinghe
- Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre (ACSRC), Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FM&HS), The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- * E-mail:
| | - Stefan Ambs
- Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute/NIH, 37 Convent Drive Bethesda, MD, United States of America
| | - Alice Wang
- Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre (ACSRC), Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FM&HS), The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Wei Tang
- Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute/NIH, 37 Convent Drive Bethesda, MD, United States of America
| | - Shuotun Zhu
- Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre (ACSRC), Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FM&HS), The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| | - Tiffany H. Dorsey
- Laboratory of Human Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute/NIH, 37 Convent Drive Bethesda, MD, United States of America
| | - Megan Goudie
- Urology Department, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
| | | | - Lynnette R. Ferguson
- Auckland Cancer Society Research Centre (ACSRC), Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FM&HS), The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
- Discipline of Nutrition and Dietetics, FM&HS, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, Harewood R, Matz M, Nikšić M, Bonaventure A, Valkov M, Johnson CJ, Estève J, Ogunbiyi OJ, Azevedo E Silva G, Chen WQ, Eser S, Engholm G, Stiller CA, Monnereau A, Woods RR, Visser O, Lim GH, Aitken J, Weir HK, Coleman MP. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet 2018; 391:1023-1075. [PMID: 29395269 PMCID: PMC5879496 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(17)33326-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3140] [Impact Index Per Article: 448.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2017] [Revised: 12/05/2017] [Accepted: 12/07/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In 2015, the second cycle of the CONCORD programme established global surveillance of cancer survival as a metric of the effectiveness of health systems and to inform global policy on cancer control. CONCORD-3 updates the worldwide surveillance of cancer survival to 2014. METHODS CONCORD-3 includes individual records for 37·5 million patients diagnosed with cancer during the 15-year period 2000-14. Data were provided by 322 population-based cancer registries in 71 countries and territories, 47 of which provided data with 100% population coverage. The study includes 18 cancers or groups of cancers: oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, breast (women), cervix, ovary, prostate, and melanoma of the skin in adults, and brain tumours, leukaemias, and lymphomas in both adults and children. Standardised quality control procedures were applied; errors were rectified by the registry concerned. We estimated 5-year net survival. Estimates were age-standardised with the International Cancer Survival Standard weights. FINDINGS For most cancers, 5-year net survival remains among the highest in the world in the USA and Canada, in Australia and New Zealand, and in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. For many cancers, Denmark is closing the survival gap with the other Nordic countries. Survival trends are generally increasing, even for some of the more lethal cancers: in some countries, survival has increased by up to 5% for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and lung. For women diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for breast cancer is now 89·5% in Australia and 90·2% in the USA, but international differences remain very wide, with levels as low as 66·1% in India. For gastrointestinal cancers, the highest levels of 5-year survival are seen in southeast Asia: in South Korea for cancers of the stomach (68·9%), colon (71·8%), and rectum (71·1%); in Japan for oesophageal cancer (36·0%); and in Taiwan for liver cancer (27·9%). By contrast, in the same world region, survival is generally lower than elsewhere for melanoma of the skin (59·9% in South Korea, 52·1% in Taiwan, and 49·6% in China), and for both lymphoid malignancies (52·5%, 50·5%, and 38·3%) and myeloid malignancies (45·9%, 33·4%, and 24·8%). For children diagnosed during 2010-14, 5-year survival for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia ranged from 49·8% in Ecuador to 95·2% in Finland. 5-year survival from brain tumours in children is higher than for adults but the global range is very wide (from 28·9% in Brazil to nearly 80% in Sweden and Denmark). INTERPRETATION The CONCORD programme enables timely comparisons of the overall effectiveness of health systems in providing care for 18 cancers that collectively represent 75% of all cancers diagnosed worldwide every year. It contributes to the evidence base for global policy on cancer control. Since 2017, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has used findings from the CONCORD programme as the official benchmark of cancer survival, among their indicators of the quality of health care in 48 countries worldwide. Governments must recognise population-based cancer registries as key policy tools that can be used to evaluate both the impact of cancer prevention strategies and the effectiveness of health systems for all patients diagnosed with cancer. FUNDING American Cancer Society; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Swiss Re; Swiss Cancer Research foundation; Swiss Cancer League; Institut National du Cancer; La Ligue Contre le Cancer; Rossy Family Foundation; US National Cancer Institute; and the Susan G Komen Foundation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claudia Allemani
- Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
| | - Tomohiro Matsuda
- Population-based Cancer Registry Section, Division of Surveillance, Center for Cancer Control and Information Services, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Veronica Di Carlo
- Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Rhea Harewood
- Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Melissa Matz
- Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Maja Nikšić
- Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Audrey Bonaventure
- Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| | - Mikhail Valkov
- Department of Radiology, Radiotherapy and Oncology, Northern State Medical University, Arkhangelsk, Russia
| | | | - Jacques Estève
- Department of Biostatistics, Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France
| | - Olufemi J Ogunbiyi
- Ibadan Cancer Registry, University City College Hospital, Ibadan, Dyo State, Nigeria
| | - Gulnar Azevedo E Silva
- Department of Epidemiology, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Maracanã, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | - Wan-Qing Chen
- National Office for Cancer Prevention and Control and National Central Cancer Registry, National Cancer Center, Beijing, China
| | - Sultan Eser
- Department of Public Health, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey
| | - Gerda Engholm
- Department of Documentation and Quality, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Charles A Stiller
- National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service, Public Health England, London, UK
| | - Alain Monnereau
- Registre des hémopathies malignes de la Gironde, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France; French Network of Cancer Registries, Toulouse, France
| | - Ryan R Woods
- British Columbia Cancer Registry, BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Otto Visser
- Netherlands Cancer Registry Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Gek Hsiang Lim
- National Registry of Diseases Office, Health Promotion Board, Singapore
| | - Joanne Aitken
- Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia
| | - Hannah K Weir
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Michel P Coleman
- Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Htun H, Elwood J, Ioannides S, Fishman T, Lawrenson R. Investigations and referral for suspected cancer in primary care in New Zealand-A survey linked to the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2017; 26. [DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/20/2016] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- H.W. Htun
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; School of Population Health; University of Auckland; Auckland New Zealand
| | - J.M. Elwood
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; School of Population Health; University of Auckland; Auckland New Zealand
| | - S.J. Ioannides
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; School of Population Health; University of Auckland; Auckland New Zealand
| | - T. Fishman
- Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care; School of Population Health; University of Auckland; Auckland New Zealand
| | - R. Lawrenson
- Waikato Clinical Campus; University of Auckland; Hamilton New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Baade P, Cramb S, Dasgupta P, Youlden D. Estimating cancer survival - improving accuracy and relevance. Aust N Z J Public Health 2016; 40:403-404. [DOI: 10.1111/1753-6405.12610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
|
10
|
Soeberg M, Blakely T, Sarfati D. Trends in ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival, New Zealand, 1991-2004. Cancer Epidemiol 2015; 39:860-2. [PMID: 26651447 DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.10.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2015] [Revised: 10/09/2015] [Accepted: 10/14/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Improvements in cancer survival may be distributed inequitably throughout populations and across time. We assessed trends in cancer survival inequalities in New Zealand by ethnic and income group. 126,477 people diagnosed with cancer between 1991 and 2004, followed-up to 2006, were included. First, inequalities pooled over time were measured with excess mortality rate ratios (EMRRs). Second, interpretation of changes in inequalities over time can differ depending on whether one uses EMRRs, excess mortality rate differences (EMRD) or absolute differences in relative survival risks (RSRD); we estimated all three by cancer-site and (for EMRRs only) pooled across all sites. We found that pooled over time and all sites, Māori had an EMRR of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.24-1.34) compared to non-Māori. The low compared to high-income EMRR was 1.12 (95% CI, 1.09-1.15). Pooled over cancers, there was no change in the ethnic EMRR over time but the income EMRR increased by 9% per decade (1-17%). Changes over time in site-specific inequalities were imprecisely measured, but the direction of change was usually consistent across EMRRs, EMRDs and RSRDs. There were persistent ethnic inequalities in cancer survival over time, and slower improvements for low-income people.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew Soeberg
- School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Australia; Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
| | - Tony Blakely
- Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| | - Diana Sarfati
- Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
| |
Collapse
|