Morris EJ, Sandin F, Lambert PC, Bray F, Klint A, Linklater K, Robinson D, Pahlman L, Holmberg L, Moller HA population-based comparison of the survival of patients with colorectal cancer in England, Norway and Sweden between 1996 and 2004. Gut 60(8): 1087-1093
ABSTRACT To examine differences in the relative survival and excess death rates of patients with colorectal cancer in Norway, Sweden and England.
All individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer (ICD10 (International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision) C18-C20) between 1996 and 2004 in England, Norway and Sweden were included in this population-based study of patients with colorectal cancer. The main outcome measures were 5-year cumulative relative period of survival and excess death rates stratified by age and period of follow-up.
The survival of English patients with colorectal cancer was significantly lower than was observed in both Norway and Sweden. Five-year age-standardised colon cancer relative survival was 51.1% (95% CI 50.1% to 52.0%) in England compared with 57.9% (95% CI 55.2% to 60.5%) in Norway and 59.9% (95% CI 57.7% to 62.0%) in Sweden. Five-year rectal cancer survival was 52.3% (95% CI 51.1% to 53.5%) in England compared with 60.7% (95% CI 57.0% to 64.2%) and 59.8% (95% CI 56.9% to 62.6%) in Norway and Sweden, respectively. The lower survival for colon cancer in England was primarily due to a high number of excess deaths among older patients in the first 3 months after diagnosis. In patients with rectal cancer, excess deaths remained elevated until 2 years of follow-up. If the lower excess death rate in Norway applied in the English population, then 890 (13.6%) and 654 (16.8%) of the excess deaths in the colon and rectal cancer populations, respectively, could have been prevented at 5 years follow-up. Most of these avoidable deaths occurred shortly after diagnosis.
There was significant variation in survival between the countries, with the English population experiencing a poorer outcome, primarily due to a relatively higher number of excess deaths in older patients in the short term after diagnosis. It seems likely, therefore, that in England a greater proportion of the population present with more rapidly fatal disease (especially in the older age groups) than in Norway or Sweden.
- SourceAvailable from: Philip Savage
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The relatively high proportion of patients with a late diagnosis of cancer in the UK may be a contributory reason for the reported overall lower cancer survival statistics in the UK compared to Australia, Canada and some of the European countries     . The exact contribution of late cancer diagnosis in producing this poorer outcome is difficult to accurately quantify, however it is estimated that if UK survival rates were to rise to the average European level, annual survival figures would improve by 6600– 7500 . "
ABSTRACT: To investigate the demographics, diagnoses and outcomes for new adult cancer patients with an initial presentation via the A&E or acute oncology teams. Patients with initial emergency presentation of malignancy have been documented to have poorer treatment outcomes and shorter survival. Patient level data on this subject is relatively limited with regard to the demographics, diagnoses and the clinical factors that may underlie late presentations. A 15 month audit of the patients presenting with a new diagnosis of malignancy was performed in 2011-2012. Data on demographics, diagnosis and outcome were assembled and analysed. The clinical data on emergency presentations were compared to reference information on the incidence and median age at presentation for each malignancy within the standard population. During the study a total of 178 new cancer patients presented via the A and E service. The most frequent diagnoses were lung cancer with 21% of cases and CNS and colorectal cancer each with 9% of cases. There was a higher incidence of emergency new presentations of lung cancer, CNS tumours, ovarian, pancreatic and testicular cancer than in the standard population, whilst breast cancer, bladder cancer and prostate cancer patients were under-represented. The median age at diagnosis was 74 and for a number of malignancies including CNS tumours, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and head and neck cancer the emergency cases presented at significantly greater ages than in the standard population. Overall 27% of patients were unfit or unsuitable for a diagnostic biopsy, this group had only a 3 month median survival compared to 14 months for those suitable for biopsy and treatment. Despite a wide range of initiatives, the emergency and late diagnosis of patients with metastatic cancer remains a significant challenge with many patients too advanced and unwell at presentation for active treatment. These patients tend to be older and have malignancies that present with either non-specific symptoms or symptoms requiring acute assessment. Improving the pathways for these patients will be challenging and require additional planning on improving awareness and access for these potentially hard to reach patients. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Cancer Epidemiology 12/2014; 39(1). DOI:10.1016/j.canep.2014.11.001 · 2.71 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Mortality is higher among people living in the most deprived areas in England  and in the East Midlands, North of England, and the Greater Manchester and Cheshire regions . Mortality after colorectal cancer treatment may also be associated with age and ethnic group although evidence for this is conflicting [2, 7]. "
ABSTRACT: Background Colorectal cancer survival in the UK is lower than in other developed countries, but the association of time interval between diagnosis and treatment on excess mortality remains unclear. Methods Using data from cancer registries in England, we identified 46,511 patients with localised colorectal cancer between 1996–2009, who were 15 years and older, and who underwent a major surgical resection within 62 days of diagnosis. We used relative survival and excess risk modeling to investigate the association of time between diagnosis and major resection (exposure) with survival (outcome). Results Compared to patients who had major resection within 25–38 days of diagnosis, patients with a shorter time interval between diagnosis and resection and those waiting longer for resection had higher excess mortality (Excess Hazards Ratio, EHR <25 vs 25–38 days: 1.50; 95% Confidence Interval, CI: 1.37 to 1.66; EHR 39–62 vs 25–38 days : 1.16; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.29). Excess mortality was associated with age (EHR 75+ vs. 15–44 year olds: 2.62; 95% CI: 2.00 to 3.42) and deprivation (EHR most vs. least deprived: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.45), but time between diagnosis and resection did not explain these differences. Conclusion Within 62 days of diagnosis, a U-shaped association of time between diagnosis and major resection with excess mortality for localised colorectal cancer was evident. This indicates a complicated treatment pathway, particularly for patients who had resection earlier than 25 days, and requires further investigation.BMC Cancer 08/2014; 14(1):642. DOI:10.1186/1471-2407-14-642 · 3.36 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The observed lower survival in the first year after diagnosis in England can largely be interpreted as evidence of later diagnosis compared with Europe (Thomson and Forman, 2009). Studies comparing England, Norway and Sweden have also identified a higher number of excess deaths in England, predominantly within the first year of diagnosis, which mainly occur in older patients (Holmberg et al, 2010; Møller et al, 2010; Morris et al, 2011). Later, diagnosis can be caused by delays in presentation, primary care delay, delays between primary and secondary care, and secondary care delay (Rubin et al, 2011). "
ABSTRACT: Background: Cancer survival in England is lower than the European average, which has been at least partly attributed to later stage at diagnosis in English patients. There are substantial regional and demographic variations in cancer survival across England. The majority of patients are diagnosed following symptomatic or incidental presentation. This study defines a methodology by which the route the patient follows to the point of diagnosis can be categorised to examine demographic, organisational, service and personal reasons for delayed diagnosis. Methods: Administrative Hospital Episode Statistics data are linked with Cancer Waiting Times data, data from the cancer screening programmes and cancer registration data. Using these data sets, every case of cancer registered in England, which was diagnosed in 2006–2008, is categorised into one of eight ‘Routes to Diagnosis'. Results: Different cancer types show substantial differences between the proportion of cases that present by each route, in reasonable agreement with previous clinical studies. Patients presenting via Emergency routes have substantially lower 1-year relative survival. Conclusion: Linked cancer registration and administrative data can be used to robustly categorise the route to a cancer diagnosis for all patients. These categories can be used to enhance understanding of and explore possible reasons for delayed diagnosis.British Journal of Cancer 09/2012; 107(8):1220-6. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2012.408 · 4.84 Impact Factor