Assessment of barriers to cancer screening and interventions implemented to overcome these barriers in 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries

There is a gap in the understanding of the barriers to cancer screening participation and complying with downstream management in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (CELAC). Our study aimed to assess barriers across the cancer screening pathway from the health system perspective, and interventions in place to improve screening in CELAC. A standardized tool was used to collect information on the barriers across the screening pathway through engagement with the health authorities of 27 member states of CELAC. Barriers were organized in a framework adapted from the Tanahashi conceptual model and consisted of the following dimensions: availability of services, access (covering accessibility and affordability), acceptability, user-provider interaction, and effectiveness of services (which includes governance, protocols and guidelines, information system, and quality assurance). The tool also collected information of interventions in place, categorized in user-directed interventions to increase demand, user-directed interventions to increase access, provider-directed interventions, and policy and system-level interventions. All countries prioritized barriers related to the information systems, such as the population register not being accurate or complete (N = 19; 70.4%). All countries implemented some kind of intervention to improve cancer screening, group education being the most reported (N = 23; 85.2%). Training on screening delivery was the most referred provider-directed intervention (N = 19; 70.4%). The study has identified several barriers to the implementation of cancer screening in the region and interventions in place to overcome some of the barriers. Further analysis is required to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in achieving their objectives.

Storytelling workshop to encourage stakeholder engagement with the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer

Storytelling can enhance stakeholder engagement and support the implementation of the World Health Organization and Pan American Health Organization's (PAHO) Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer, which aims to improve care globally for children with cancer. The Initiative aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, addressing health, education, inequalities and international collaboration. This report describes the design and implementation of a workshop that used storytelling through film to encourage stakeholders in national cancer control plans to engage with the Initiative in its focal countries in Central America, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. A six-step process was used to develop the virtual workshop hosted by PAHO: (i) define the audience; (ii) define the goals of storytelling; (iii) build an appropriate storyline, including choosing a platform and content, and addressing group dynamics and the length of the film; (iv) guide the workshop's design and implementation with current theoretical frameworks, including the Socioecological Model of Health and the Theory of Change; (v) design interactive group exercises; and (vi) disseminate workshop results. The skills-building component of the day-long workshop included 80 representatives from eight countries in the Region of the Americas, with participants representing pediatric oncology, hospital administration, ministries of health, nonprofit foundations, the scientific community and public health organizations. Outputs from the workshop included (i) a summary report, (ii) an empathy word cloud with live reactions from participants, (iii) qualitative responses (i.e. quotes from participants), (iv) stakeholders' analyses and (v) a prioritization matrix for country-level strategic activities that could be undertaken to strengthen health systems when caring for children with cancer. The workshop used storytelling through film to try to reduce health inequalities and have a regional impact. Combining art, public health and medicine, the workshop created positive change by sharing real-life experiences. Commitment was fostered among stakeholders through their engagement with the workshop, which aimed to increase their awareness of the need and advocacy to improve health systems and enhance access to health care for this vulnerable population.

Regional collaboration for the development of national childhood cancer plans in Latin America and the Caribbean

This article aims to describe the activities conducted by the National Childhood Cancer Plan Working Group to support the development of national childhood cancer plans in Latin America and the Caribbean in the period 2019-2022, and to present the stage of plan development. The Working Group activities were supported by the Pan American Health Organization and St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, which is the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Childhood Cancer. Year after year, the workshops and activities developed with the Working Group mobilized key stakeholders: pediatric oncologists, representatives of the Ministry of Health, foundations supporting childhood cancer initiatives, and hospital administrators. As of February 2023, one regional framework is in place, approved by the Council of Ministries of Health of Central America and the Dominican Republic, nine countries are currently implementing national plans or laws that include childhood cancer, and ten countries are writing new plans. The WHO three-step framework helped to guide the Working Group activities. All plans were supported by a situational analysis, which highlighted the importance of having systematized data for evidence-based policies. To increase implementation success, an accompanying budget and timeline help to ensure the adequate implementation of the interventions. More than anything, committed stakeholders remain the most fundamental element to successfully write and approve a national childhood cancer plan. This is an opportunity to share these countries' experience so the strategy can be adapted to support other countries developing a childhood cancer plan and extended to other public health areas.

Delays in cancer diagnosis: challenges and opportunities in Europe

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Early cancer diagnosis is a public health priority, but large proportions of patients are diagnosed with advanced disease or as an emergency, even in countries with universal healthcare coverage. The study aimed at examining factors contributing to diagnostic delays and inequalities in cancer care, discussing challenges and opportunities for improving the diagnosis of cancer.

METHODS

We performed a critical review of the literature examining factors contributing to delays and inequalities in cancer diagnosis, published between 2019-2023, in Europe with a specific focus on Italy.

RESULTS

Disparities in screening, cancer diagnosis and treatment have been reported in many European countries, with poorer outcomes for some population sub-groups. For example, some Northern regions in Italy have six-times higher screening participation versus Southern regions. In 2019 36% of the Italian population aged 50-74 reported colorectal cancer screening, higher than the EU average (33%), but lower than in countries like Denmark (>60%). In Italy, the EU country with the largest percentage of people aged 65+, incident cancers are expected to rise by 19.6% over two decades. Older age is also associated with multimorbidity, with physical and mental health morbidities possibly affecting cancer diagnostic pathways. For example, colon cancer patients with pre-existing mental health conditions were 28% less likely to have a prompt colonoscopy when presenting with red-flag symptoms, according to recent UK research. Covid-19 has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities, with reductions in scheduled surgery and oncological treatments, especially affecting women, older and less educated individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

For ensuring appropriate care, it is crucial to better understand how different factors, including physical and mental health morbidities, impact cancer diagnosis. The "NextGenerationEU" program and the "National Recovery and Resilience Plan" (PNNR in Italy) following the Covid-19 pandemic offer opportunities for reducing inequalities, improving cancer care and chronic disease management for ageing populations.

Elimination of cervical cancer in Latin America (Project ECHO-ELA): lessons from phase one of implementation

We describe the outcomes of The Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes-Elimination of Cervical Cancer in The Americas (ECHO-ELA) program, which was developed as a tri-lateral cooperation between Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (MD Anderson). The program's purpose is to disseminate strategies for cervical cancer prevention and is structured around the three pillars of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Cervical Cancer Elimination Strategy and the associated 90-70-90 target goals. The target audience includes health authorities from Latin American and Caribbean countries, as well as PAHO's non-communicable disease Focal Points in country offices as well as clinical and public health collaborators. The virtual sessions are held in Spanish for 1.5 hours every month using the ECHO® format. From May 2020 to June 2021, 14 ECHO sessions were held with an average of 74 participants per session (range: 46 - 142). We conducted two anonymous surveys (baseline and follow up) and two focus groups. Respondents stated that the topics they learned the most about included the state of HPV vaccination in the region and strategies for implementing HPV vaccination. Identified needs included support between ECHO sessions and country-specific technical assistance. The ECHO-ELA program provides a forum for increased collaboration between countries in Latin America/Caribbean and the dissemination of best-practice strategies to reach the WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination target goals.

Partnering to implement the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer in the Americas: prioritizing systems strengthening

Working with PAHO/WHO to prioritize childhood cancer in the context of systems strengthening is central to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (SJCRH)'s role as WHO Collaborating Centre for Childhood Cancer. This manuscript focuses on how SJCRH and PAHO/WHO have partnered to apply C5 (Country Collaboration for Childhood Cancer Control) to define and implement priority actions regionally, strengthening Ministry programs for childhood cancer, while implementing the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer since 2018. Using C5, a tool developed by SJCRH, PAHO/WHO and SJCRH co-hosted regional/national workshops engaging authorities, clinicians and other stakeholders across 10 countries to map health systems needs and prioritize strategic activities (spanning Central America, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Brazil and Uruguay). SJCRH provided English/Spanish/Portuguese C5 versions/templates for analysis/prioritization exercises, and worked with PAHO/WHO and country teams to implement C5, analyze findings, and develop outputs. In an eight-country regional workshop, countries defined priorities within national/regional initiatives and ranked their value and political will, incorporating country-specific surveys and stakeholder dialogues. Each country prioritized one strategic activity for 2022-2023, exchanged insights via storytelling, and disseminated and applied results to inform country-specific and regional action plans. National workshops analyses have been incorporated into cancer control planning activities and collaborative work regionally. Implementation success factors include engaging actors beyond the clinic, enabling flexibility, and focusing on co-design with stakeholders. Joint implementation of C5 catalyzed prioritization and accelerated strategic activities to improve policies, capacity, and quality of care for children in the Americas, supporting Ministries to integrate childhood cancer interventions as part of systems strengthening.

Changing patterns of multidisciplinary team treatment, early mortality, and survival in colorectal cancer

Background

This study reports early mortality and survival from colorectal cancer in relation to the pattern of treatments delivered by the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting at a high-volume institution in England over 14 years.

Methods

All patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and discussed during MDT meetings from 2003 to 2016 at a single institution were reviewed. Three time intervals (2003–2007, 2008–2012, and 2013–2016) were compared regarding initial surgical management (resection, local excision, non-resection surgery, and no surgery), initial oncological therapy, 90-day mortality, and crude 2-year survival for the whole cohort. Sub-analyses were performed according to age greater or less than 80 years.

Results

The MDT managed 4617 patients over 14 years (1496 in the first interval and 1389 in the last). Over this time, there was a reduction in emergency resections from 15.5 per cent to 9.0 per cent (P < 0.0001); use of oncological therapies increased from 34.6 per cent to 41.6 per cent (P < 0.0001). The 90-day mortality after diagnosis of colorectal cancer dropped from 14.8 per cent to 10.7 per cent (P < 0.001) and 2-year survival improved from 58.6 per cent to 65 per cent (P < 0.001). Among patients aged 80 years or older (425 and 446, in the first and last intervals respectively) there was, in addition, a progressive increase in ‘no surgery’ rate from 33.6 per cent to 50.2 per cent (P < 0.0001) and a reduction in elective resections from 42.4 per cent to 33.9 per cent (P = 0.010). The 90-day mortality after elective resection fell from 10.0 per cent (18 of 180) to 3.3 per cent (5 of 151; P = 0.013).

Conclusions

Survival from colorectal cancer improved significantly over 14 years. Among patients aged ≥80 years, major changes in the type of treatment delivered were associated with a decrease in postoperative mortality.

Mental Health Morbidities and Time to Cancer Diagnosis Among Adults With Colon Cancer in England

Importance

Mental health morbidity (MHM) in patients presenting with possible cancer symptoms may be associated with prediagnostic care and time to cancer diagnosis.

Objective

To compare the length of intervals to cancer diagnosis by preexisting MHM status in patients who presented with symptoms of as-yet-undiagnosed colon cancer and evaluate their risk of emergency cancer diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study was conducted using linked primary care data obtained from the population-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which includes primary care practices in England, linked to cancer registry and hospital data. Included participants were 3766 patients diagnosed with colon cancer between 2011 and 2015 presenting with cancer-relevant symptoms up to 24 months before their diagnosis. Data analysis was performed in January 2021 to April 2022.

Exposures

Mental health conditions recorded in primary care before cancer diagnosis, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, alcohol addiction, anorexia, and bulimia.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Fast-track (also termed 2-week wait) specialist referral for investigations, time to colonoscopy and cancer diagnosis, and risk of emergency cancer diagnosis.

Results

Among 3766 patients with colon cancer (median [IQR] age, 75 [65-82] years; 1911 [50.7%] women ), 623 patients [16.5%] had preexisting MHM recorded in primary care the year before cancer diagnosis, including 562 patients (14.9%) with preexisting anxiety or depression (accounting for 90.2% of patients with preexisting MHM) and 61 patients (1.6%) with other MHM; 3143 patients (83.5%) did not have MHM. Patients with MHM had records of red-flag symptoms or signs (ie, rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, or anemia) in the 24 months before cancer diagnosis in a smaller proportion compared with patients without MHM (308 patients [49.4%] vs 1807 patients [57.5%]; P < .001). Even when red-flag symptoms were recorded, patients with MHM had lower odds of fast-track specialist referral (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94; P = .01). Among 2115 patients with red-flag symptoms or signs, 308 patients with MHM experienced a more than 2-fold longer median (IQR) time to cancer diagnosis (326 [75-552] days vs 133 [47-422] days) and higher odds of emergency diagnosis (90 patients [29.2%] vs 327 patients [18.1%]; adjusted OR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.23-2.24; P < .001) compared with 1807 patients without MHM.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found that patients with MHM experienced large and prognostically consequential disparities in diagnostic care before a colon cancer diagnosis. These findings suggest that appropriate pathways and follow-up strategies after symptomatic presentation are needed for earlier cancer diagnoses and improved health outcomes in this large patient group.

Do presenting symptoms, use of pre-diagnostic endoscopy and risk of emergency cancer diagnosis vary by comorbidity burden and type in patients with colorectal cancer?

BACKGROUND

Cancer 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.

METHODS

Using 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.

RESULTS

Among 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]).

CONCLUSIONS

Comorbid 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.

Socioeconomic gaps over time in colorectal cancer survival in England: flexible parametric survival analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite persistent reports of socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer survival in England, the magnitude of survival differences has not been fully evaluated.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with colon cancer (n=68 169) and rectal cancer (n=38 267) in England (diagnosed between January 2010 and March 2013) were analysed as a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Registry data linked with other population-based healthcare records. The flexible parametric model incorporating time-varying covariates was used to assess the difference in excess hazard of death and in net survival between the most affluent and the most deprived groups over time.

RESULTS

Survival analyses showed a clear pattern by deprivation. Hazard ratio of death was consistently higher in the most deprived group than the least deprived for both colon and rectal cancer, ranging from 1.08 to 1.17 depending on the model. On the net survival scale, the socioeconomic gap between the most and the least deprived groups reached approximately -4% at the maximum (-3.7%, 95% CI -1.6 to -5.7% in men, -3.6%, 95% CI -1.6 to -5.7% in women) in stages III for colon and approximately -2% (-2.3%, 95% CI -0.2 to -4.5% in men, -2.3%, 95% CI -0.2 to -4.3% in women) in stage II for rectal cancer at 3 years from diagnosis, after controlling for age, emergency presentation, receipt of resection and comorbidities. The gap was smaller in other stages and sites. For both cancers, patients with emergency presentation persistently had a higher excess hazard of death than those without emergency presentation.

CONCLUSION

Survival disparities were profound particularly among patients in the stages, which benefit from appropriate and timely treatment. For the patients with emergency presentation, excess hazard of death remained high throughout three years from the diagnosis. Public health measures should be taken to reduce access inequalities to improve survival disparities.

Association between multimorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation on short-term mortality among patients with diffuse large B-cell or follicular lymphoma in England: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the association between multimorbidity and deprivation on short-term mortality among patients with diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) in England.

SETTING

The association of multimorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation on survival among patients diagnosed with DLBCL and FL in England between 2005 and 2013. We linked the English population-based cancer registry with electronic health records databases and estimated adjusted mortality rate ratios by multimorbidity and deprivation status. Using flexible hazard-based regression models, we computed DLBCL and FL standardised mortality risk by deprivation and multimorbidity at 1 year.

RESULTS

Overall, 41 422 patients aged 45-99 years were diagnosed with DLBCL or FL in England during 2005-2015. Most deprived patients with FL with multimorbidities had three times higher hazard of 1-year mortality (HR: 3.3, CI 2.48 to 4.28, p<0.001) than least deprived patients without comorbidity; among DLBCL, there was approximately twice the hazard (HR: 1.9, CI 1.70 to 2.07, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Multimorbidity, deprivation and their combination are strong and independent predictors of an increased short-term mortality risk among patients with DLBCL and FL in England. Public health measures targeting the reduction of multimorbidity among most deprived patients with DLBCL and FL are needed to reduce the short-term mortality gap.

Excess Mortality by Multimorbidity, Socioeconomic, and Healthcare Factors, amongst Patients Diagnosed with Diffuse Large B-Cell or Follicular Lymphoma in England

(1) Background: Socioeconomic inequalities of survival in patients with lymphoma persist, which may be explained by patients' comorbidities. We aimed to assess the association between comorbidities and the survival of patients diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL) in England accounting for other socio-demographic characteristics. (2) Methods: Population-based cancer registry data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. We used a flexible multilevel excess hazard model to estimate excess mortality and net survival by patient's comorbidity status, adjusted for sociodemographic, economic, and healthcare factors, and accounting for the patient's area of residence. We used the latent normal joint modelling multiple imputation approach for missing data. (3) Results: Overall, 15,516 and 29,898 patients were diagnosed with FL and DLBCL in England between 2005 and 2013, respectively. Amongst DLBCL and FL patients, respectively, those in the most deprived areas showed 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-1.27) and 1.45 (95% CI: 1.30-1.62) times higher excess mortality hazard compared to those in the least deprived areas, adjusted for comorbidity status, age at diagnosis, sex, ethnicity, and route to diagnosis. (4) Conclusions: Deprivation is consistently associated with poorer survival among patients diagnosed with DLBCL or FL, after adjusting for co/multimorbidities. Comorbidities and multimorbidities need to be considered when planning public health interventions targeting haematological malignancies in England.

Investigating the inequalities in route to diagnosis amongst patients with diffuse large B-cell or follicular lymphoma in England

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic delay is associated with lower chances of cancer survival. Underlying comorbidities are known to affect the timely diagnosis of cancer. Diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) and follicular lymphomas (FL) are primarily diagnosed amongst older patients, who are more likely to have comorbidities. Characteristics of clinical commissioning groups (CCG) are also known to impact diagnostic delay. We assess the association between comorbidities and diagnostic delay amongst patients with DLBCL or FL in England during 2005-2013.

METHODS

Multivariable generalised linear mixed-effect models were used to assess the main association. Empirical Bayes estimates of the random effects were used to explore between-cluster variation. The latent normal joint modelling multiple imputation approach was used to account for partially observed variables.

RESULTS

We included 30,078 and 15,551 patients diagnosed with DLBCL or FL, respectively. Amongst patients from the same CCG, having multimorbidity was strongly associated with the emergency route to diagnosis (DLBCL: odds ratio 1.56, CI 1.40-1.73; FL: odds ratio 1.80, CI 1.45-2.23). Amongst DLBCL patients, the diagnostic delay was possibly correlated with CCGs that had higher population densities.

CONCLUSIONS

Underlying comorbidity is associated with diagnostic delay amongst patients with DLBCL or FL. Results suggest a possible correlation between CCGs with higher population densities and diagnostic delay of aggressive lymphomas.

Thyroid dysfunction and breast cancer risk among women in the UK Biobank cohort

This study aimed to evaluate the association between thyroid dysfunction and breast cancer risk. We included 239,436 females of the UK Biobank cohort. Information on thyroid dysfunction, personal and family medical history, medications, reproductive factors, lifestyle, and socioeconomic characteristics was retrieved from baseline self-reported data and hospital inpatient databases. Breast cancer diagnoses were identified through population-based registries. We computed Cox models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of breast cancer incidence for thyroid dysfunction diagnosis and treatments, and examined potential confounding and effect modification by comorbidities and breast cancer risk factors. In our study, 3,227 (1.3%) and 20,762 (8.7%) women had hyper- and hypothyroidism prior to the baseline. During a median follow-up of 7.1 years, 5,326 (2.2%) women developed breast cancer. Compared to no thyroid dysfunction, there was no association between hypothyroidism and breast cancer risk overall (HR = 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-1.02, 442 cases), but we found a decreased risk more than 10 years after hypothyroidism diagnosis (HR=0.85, 95%CI 0.74-0.97, 226 cases). There was no association with hyperthyroidism overall (HR=1.08, 95%CI 0.86-1.35, 79 cases) but breast cancer risk was elevated among women with treated hyperthyroidism (HR=1.38, 95%CI: 1.03-1.86, 44 cases) or aged 60 years or more at hyperthyroidism diagnosis (HR=1.74, 95%CI: 1.01-3.00, 113 cases), and 5-10 years after hyperthyroidism diagnosis (HR=1.58, 95%CI: 1.06-2.33, 25 cases). In conclusion, breast cancer risk was reduced long after hypothyroidism diagnosis, but increased among women with treated hyperthyroidism. Future studies are needed to determine whether the higher breast cancer risk observed among treated hyperthyroidism could be explained by hyperthyroidism severity, type of treatment or aetiology.

Exploring socioeconomic differences in surgery and in time to elective surgery for colon cancer in England: Population-based study

BACKGROUND

A persistent socioeconomic gap in colon cancer survival is observed in England. Provision of cancer care may also vary by socioeconomic status (SES). We investigated population-based data to explore differential surgical care by SES.

METHODS

We analysed a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with colon cancer in England (2010-2013). We examined patterns of presentation and surgery by SES, and whether socioeconomic differences exist in the length of time from diagnosis to elective major resection using linear regression.

RESULTS

Among a total of 68 169 patients with colon cancer, 21.0 % (3138/14 917) in the most affluent group had emergency presentation (EP) whereas 27.9 % (2901/10 386) in the most deprived. Among 45 332 (66.5 %) patients who underwent resection, the proportion of patients receiving urgent surgery (surgery before or ≤ 7 days of diagnosis) was higher in the most deprived group (39.9 %, 2685/6733) than the most affluent (35.4 %, 3595/10 146). Days from diagnosis to elective surgery (surgery > 7 days after diagnosis) ranged from 33.9 (95 % CI 33.1-34.8) in stage II to 38.2 (95 % CI 36.8-39.7) in stage I, but no socioeconomic differences in time were seen in all stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Time to elective surgery for colon cancer did not differ by SES, whereas a higher proportion among deprived patients tended to be diagnosed through EP and to receive urgent surgery. These results suggest that the waiting time target may not be an appropriate measure to assess access to cancer care. Reducing both EP and urgent surgery should be a key policy target.

Reflection on modern methods: trial emulation in the presence of immortal-time bias. Assessing the benefit of major surgery for elderly lung cancer patients using observational data

Acquiring real-world evidence is crucial to support health policy, but observational studies are prone to serious biases. An approach was recently proposed to overcome confounding and immortal-time biases within the emulated trial framework. This tutorial provides a step-by-step description of the design and analysis of emulated trials, as well as R and Stata code, to facilitate its use in practice. The steps consist in: (i) specifying the target trial and inclusion criteria; (ii) cloning patients; (iii) defining censoring and survival times; (iv) estimating the weights to account for informative censoring introduced by design; and (v) analysing these data. These steps are illustrated with observational data to assess the benefit of surgery among 70-89-year-old patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer. Because of the severe unbalance of the patient characteristics between treatment arms (surgery yes/no), a naïve Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the initial cohort severely overestimated the benefit of surgery on 1-year survival (22% difference), as did a survival analysis of the cloned dataset when informative censoring was ignored (17% difference). By contrast, the estimated weights adequately removed the covariate imbalance. The weighted analysis still showed evidence of a benefit, though smaller (11% difference), of surgery among older lung cancer patients on 1-year survival. Complementing the CERBOT tool, this tutorial explains how to proceed to conduct emulated trials using observational data in the presence of immortal-time bias. The strength of this approach is its transparency and its principles that are easily understandable by non-specialists.

Surgical treatment and survival from colorectal cancer in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

FINDINGS

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%).

INTERPRETATION

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.

FUNDING

Early Diagnosis Policy Research Grant from Cancer Research UK (C7923/A18348).

Can we assess Cancer Waiting Time targets with cancer survival? A population-based study of individually linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times monitoring dataset in England, 2009-2013

BACKGROUND

Cancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009-2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record. The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment ('met/not met'). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation. The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9-89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1-91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent. There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the current composition of the data means target compliance needs further evaluation before being used for the assessment of clinical outcomes.

Characteristics of patients with missing information on stage: a population-based study of patients diagnosed with colon, lung or breast cancer in England in 2013

BACKGROUND

Stage is a key predictor of cancer survival. Complete cancer staging is vital for understanding outcomes at population level and monitoring the efficacy of early diagnosis initiatives. Cancer registries usually collect details of the disease extent but staging information may be missing because a stage was never assigned to a patient or because it was not included in cancer registration records. Missing stage information introduce methodological difficulties for analysis and interpretation of results. We describe the associations between missing stage and socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with colon, lung or breast cancer in England in 2013. We assess how these associations change when completeness is high, and administrative issues are assumed to be minimal. We estimate the amount of avoidable missing stage data if high levels of completeness reached by some Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), were achieved nationally.

METHODS

Individual cancer records were retrieved from the National Cancer Registration and linked to the Routes to Diagnosis and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets to obtain additional clinical information. We used multivariable beta binomial regression models to estimate the strength of the association between socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients and missing stage and to derive the amount of avoidable missing stage.

RESULTS

Multivariable modelling showed that old age was associated with missing stage irrespective of the cancer site and independent of comorbidity score, short-term mortality and patient characteristics. This remained true for patients in the CCGs with high completeness. Applying the results from these CCGs to the whole cohort showed that approximately 70% of missing stage information was potentially avoidable.

CONCLUSIONS

Missing stage was more frequent in older patients, including those residing in CCGs with high completeness. This disadvantage for older patients was not explained fully by the presence of comorbidity. A substantial gain in completeness could have been achieved if administrative practices were improved to the level of the highest performing areas. Reasons for missing stage information should be carefully assessed before any study, and potential distortions introduced by how missing stage is handled should be considered in order to draw the most correct inference from available statistics.