German cancer statistics 2004

Background: For years the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) has been annually pooling and reviewing the data from the German population-based cancer registries and evaluating them together with the cause-of-death statistics provided by the statistical offices. Traditionally, the RKI periodically estimates the number of new cancer cases in Germany on the basis of the available data from the regional cancer registries in which registration is complete; this figure, in turn, forms the basis for further important indicators. Methods: This article gives a brief overview of current indicators - such as incidence, prevalence, mortality, survival rates - on the most common types of cancer, as well as important ratios on the risks of developing and dying of cancer in Germany. Results: According to the latest estimate, there were a total of 436,500 new cancer cases in Germany in 2004. The most common cancer in men is prostate cancer with over 58,000 new cases per annum, followed by colorectal and lung cancer. In women, breast cancer remains the most common cancer with an estimated 57,000 new cases every year, also followed by colorectal cancer. These and further findings on selected cancer sites can be found in the current brochure on “Cancer in Germany”, which is regularly published by the RKI together with the Association of Population-based Cancer Registries in Germany (GEKID). In addition, the RKI made cancer-prevalence estimates and calculated current morbidity and mortality risks at the federal level for the first time. According to these figures, the 5-year partial prevalence - i.e. the total number of cancer patients diagnosed over the past five years who are currently still living - exceeds 600,000 in men; the figure is about the same among women. Here, too, the most common cancers are prostate cancer in men and breast cancer in women. The lifetime risk of developing cancer, which is more related to the individual, is estimated to be higher among men (48.5%) than among women (40.3%). In roughly rounded figures, therefore, about every second person in Germany develops cancer in the course of their lives. One in four men and one in five women die of cancer. Conclusions: In recent years, population-based cancer registration in Germany has come significantly closer to the aim of the complete, nationwide coverage of cancer. The continuous improvements in the data situation help describe cancer development in Germany

The modified Glasgow prognostic score in prostate cancer: results from a retrospective clinical series of 744 patients

<p>Background: As the incidence of prostate cancer continues to rise steeply, there is an increasing need to identify more accurate prognostic markers for the disease. There is some evidence that a higher modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) may be associated with poorer survival in patients with prostate cancer but it is not known whether this is independent of other established prognostic factors. Therefore the aim of this study was to describe the relationship between mGPS and survival in patients with prostate cancer after adjustment for other prognostic factors.</p> <p>Methods: Retrospective clinical series on patients in Glasgow, Scotland, for whom data from the Scottish Cancer Registry, including Gleason score, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA), C-reactive protein (CRP) and albumin, six months prior to or following the diagnosis, were included in this study.</p> <p>The mGPS was constructed by combining CRP and albumin. Five-year and ten-year relative survival and relative excess risk of death were estimated by mGPS categories after adjusting for age, socioeconomic circumstances, Gleason score, PSA and previous in-patient bed days.</p> <p>Results: Seven hundred and forty four prostate cancer patients were identified; of these, 497 (66.8%) died during a maximum follow up of 11.9 years. Patients with mGPS of 2 had poorest 5-year and 10-year relative survival, of 32.6% and 18.8%, respectively. Raised mGPS also had a significant association with excess risk of death at five years (mGPS 2: Relative Excess Risk = 3.57, 95% CI 2.31-5.52) and ten years (mGPS 2: Relative Excess Risk = 3.42, 95% CI 2.25-5.21) after adjusting for age, socioeconomic circumstances, Gleason score, PSA and previous in-patient bed days.</p> <p>Conclusions: The mGPS is an independent and objective prognostic indicator for survival of patients with prostate cancer. It may be useful in determining the clinical management of patients with prostate cancer in addition to established prognostic markers.</p&gt

Spatial variation in prostate cancer survival in the Northern and Yorkshire region of England using Bayesian relative survival smoothing

Primary Care Trust (PCT) estimates of survival lack robustness as there are small numbers of deaths per year in each area, even when incidence is high. We assess PCT-level spatial variation in prostate cancer survival using Bayesian spatial models of excess mortality. We extracted data on men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1990 and 1999 from the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service database. Models were adjusted for age at diagnosis, period of diagnosis and deprivation. All covariates had a significant association with excess mortality; men from more deprived areas, older age at diagnosis and diagnosed in 1990–1994 had higher excess mortality. The unadjusted relative excess risks (RER) of death by PCT ranged from 0.75 to 1.66. After adjustment, areas of high and low excess mortality were smoothed towards the mean, and the RERs ranged from 0.74 to 1.49. Using Bayesian smoothing techniques to model cancer survival by geographic area offers many advantages over traditional methods; estimates in areas with small populations or low incidence rates are stabilised and shrunk towards local and global risk estimates improving reliability and precision, complex models are easily handled and adjustment for covariates can be made

A reference relative time-scale as an alternative to chronological age for cohorts with long follow-up

Background: Epidemiologists have debated the appropriate time-scale for cohort survival studies; chronological age or time-on-study being two such time-scales. Importantly, assessment of risk factors may depend on the choice of time-scale. Recently, chronological or attained age has gained support but a case can be made for a ‘reference relative time-scale’ as an alternative which circumvents difficulties that arise with this and other scales. The reference relative time of an individual participant is the integral of a reference population hazard function between time of entry and time of exit of the individual. The objective here is to describe the reference relative time-scale, illustrate its use, make comparison with attained age by simulation and explain its relationship to modern and traditional epidemiologic methods. Results: A comparison was made between two models; a stratified Cox model with age as the time-scale versus an un-stratified Cox model using the reference relative time-scale. The illustrative comparison used a UK cohort of cotton workers, with differing ages at entry to the study, with accrual over a time period and with long follow-up. Additionally, exponential and Weibull models were fitted since the reference relative time-scale analysis need not be restricted to the Cox model. A simulation study showed that analysis using the reference relative time-scale and analysis using chronological age had very similar power to detect a significant risk factor and both were equally unbiased. Further, the analysis using the reference relative time-scale supported fully-parametric survival modelling and allowed percentile predictions and mortality curves to be constructed. Conclusions: The reference relative time-scale was a viable alternative to chronological age, led to simplification of the modelling process and possessed the defined features of a good time-scale as defined in reliability theory. The reference relative time-scale has several interpretations and provides a unifying concept that links contemporary approaches in survival and reliability analysis to the traditional epidemiologic methods of Poisson regression and standardised mortality ratios. The community of practitioners has not previously made this connection

Calculating age-adjusted cancer survival estimates when age-specific data are sparse: an empirical evaluation of various methods

We evaluated empirically the performance of various methods of calculating age-adjusted survival estimates when age-specific data are sparse. We have illustrated that a recently proposed alternative method of age adjustment involving the use of balanced age groups or age truncation may be useful for enhancing calculability and reliability of adjusted survival estimates

Population-based monitoring of cancer patient survival in situations with imperfect completeness of cancer registration

Selective underascertainment of cases may bias estimates of cancer patient survival. We show that the magnitude of potential bias strongly depends on the time periods affected by underascertainment and on the type of survival analysis (cohort analysis vs period analysis). We outline strategies on how to minimise or overcome potential biases

Survival from cancer in teenagers and young adults in England, 1979–2003

Cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in teenagers and young adults aged 13–24 years (TYAs) in England. We have analysed national 5-year relative survival among more than 30 000 incident cancer cases in TYAs. For cancer overall, 5-year survival improved from 63% in 1979–84 to 74% during 1996–2001 (P<0.001). However, there were no sustained improvements in survival over time among high-grade brain tumours and bone and soft tissue sarcomas. Survival patterns varied by age group (13–16, 17–20, 21–24 years), sex and diagnosis. Survival from leukaemia and brain tumours was better in the youngest age group but in the oldest from germ-cell tumours (GCTs). For lymphomas, bone and soft tissue sarcomas, melanoma and carcinomas, survival was not significantly associated with age. Females had a better survival than males except for GCTs. Most groups showed no association between survival and socioeconomic deprivation, but for leukaemias, head and neck carcinoma and colorectal carcinoma, survival was significantly poorer with increasing deprivation. These results will aid the development of national specialised service provision for this age group and identify areas of clinical need that present the greatest challenges