Louise Hanna

Publications (2)10.73 Total impact

• Article: Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK: a population-based study, 2004-2007.

  Sarah Walters, Camille Maringe, Michel P Coleman, Michael D Peake, John Butler, Nicholas Young, Stefan Bergström, Louise Hanna, Erik Jakobsen, Karl Kölbeck, [......], Marianne L Gjerstorff, Juanita Hatcher, Tom Børge Johannesen, Karen M Linklater, Colleen E McGahan, John Steward, Elizabeth Tracey, Donna Turner, Michael A Richards, Bernard Rachet
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The authors consider whether differences in stage at diagnosis could explain the variation in lung cancer survival between six developed countries in 2004-2007. METHODS: Routinely collected population-based data were obtained on all adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with lung cancer in 2004-2007 and registered in regional and national cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK. Stage data for 57 352 patients were consolidated from various classification systems. Flexible parametric hazard models on the log cumulative scale were used to estimate net survival at 1 year and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Age-standardised 1-year net survival from non-small cell lung cancer ranged from 30% (UK) to 46% (Sweden). Patients in the UK and Denmark had lower survival than elsewhere, partly because of a more adverse stage distribution. However, there were also wide international differences in stage-specific survival. Net survival from TNM stage I non-small cell lung cancer was 16% lower in the UK than in Sweden, and for TNM stage IV disease survival was 10% lower. Similar patterns were found for small cell lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: There are comparability issues when using population-based data but, even given these constraints, this study shows that, while differences in stage at diagnosis explain some of the international variation in overall lung cancer survival, wide disparities in stage-specific survival exist, suggesting that other factors are also important such as differences in treatment. Stage should be included in international cancer survival studies and the comparability of population-based data should be improved.
  Thorax 02/2013; · 6.84 Impact Factor
• Article: Stage at diagnosis and ovarian cancer survival: evidence from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.

  Camille Maringe, Sarah Walters, John Butler, Michel P Coleman, Neville Hacker, Louise Hanna, Berit J Mosgaard, Andy Nordin, Barry Rosen, Gerda Engholm, Marianne L Gjerstorff, Juanita Hatcher, Tom B Johannesen, Colleen E McGahan, David Meechan, Richard Middleton, Elizabeth Tracey, Donna Turner, Michael A Richards, Bernard Rachet
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: We investigate what role stage at diagnosis bears in international differences in ovarian cancer survival. Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the UK were analysed for 20,073 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2004-07. We compare the stage distribution between countries and estimate stage-specific one-year net survival and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log cumulative excess hazard scale. One-year survival was 69% in the UK, 72% in Denmark and 74-75% elsewhere. In Denmark, 74% of patients were diagnosed with FIGO stages III-IV disease, compared to 60-70% elsewhere. International differences in survival were evident at each stage of disease; women in the UK had lower survival than in the other four countries for patients with FIGO stages III-IV disease (61.4% vs. 65.8-74.4%). International differences were widest for older women and for those with advanced stage or with no stage data. Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international variation in ovarian cancer survival, and a more adverse stage distribution contributes to comparatively low survival in Denmark. This could arise because of differences in tumour biology, staging procedures or diagnostic delay. Differences in survival also exist within each stage, as illustrated by lower survival for advanced disease in the UK, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment. Population-based data on cancer survival by stage are vital for cancer surveillance, and global consensus is needed to make stage data in cancer registries more consistent.
  Gynecologic Oncology 06/2012; 127(1):75-82. · 3.89 Impact Factor