What if cancer survival in Britain were the same as in Europe: how many deaths are avoidable?

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of deaths among cancer patients diagnosed in Great Britain that would be avoidable within 5 years of diagnosis if the mean (or highest) survival in Europe for patients diagnosed during 1985-1989, 1990-1994 and 1995-1999 were achieved. DESIGN: Five-year relative survival for cancers in Great Britain compared with that from other countries in the EUROCARE-2, -3 and -4 studies. Calculation of excess deaths (those more than expected from mortality in the general population) that would be avoidable among cancer patients in Britain if relative survival were the same as in Europe. SETTING: Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) and 13 other European countries. SUBJECTS: 2.8 million adults diagnosed in Britain with 1 of 39 cancers during 1985-1989 (followed up to 1994), 1990-1994 (followed up to 1999) and 1995-1999 (followed up to 2003). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Annual number of avoidable deaths within 5 years of diagnosis. Percentage of the excess (cancer-related) deaths among cancer patients that would be avoidable. RESULTS: Compared with the mean European 5-year relative survival, the largest numbers of avoidable deaths for patients diagnosed during 1985-1989 were for cancers of the breast (about 18% of the excess mortality from this cancer, 7541 deaths), prostate (14%, 4285), colon (9%, 4090), stomach (8%, 3483) and lung (2%, 3548). For 1990-1994, the largest numbers of avoidable deaths were for cancers of the prostate (20%, 7335), breast (15%, 6165), colon (9%, 4376), stomach (9%, 3672), lung (2%, 3735) and kidney (22%, 2644). For 1995-1999, most of the avoidable deaths were for cancers of the prostate (17%, 5758), breast (15%, 5475), lung (3%, 4923), colon (10%, 4295), stomach (9%, 3137) and kidney (21%, 2686).Overall, some 6600-7500 premature deaths would have been avoided each year among cancer patients diagnosed in Britain during 1985-1999 if the mean survival in Europe had been achieved. This represents 6-7% of cancer-related mortality. Compared with the highest European survival, avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients fell from about 12 800 deaths a year (12.2% of cancer-related mortality) to about 11 400 deaths a year (10.6%) over the same period.A large component of the avoidable mortality is due to prostate cancer: excluding this cancer from comparison with the European mean survival reduces the annual number of avoidable deaths by 1000-1500, and the percentage of excess mortality by up to 1%. Compared with the highest survival, the annual number of avoidable deaths would be 1500-2000 fewer, and 1-2% lower as a percentage of excess mortality, but the overall trend in avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients would be similar, falling from 11.4% (1985-1989) to 10.3% (1990-1994) and 9.7% for those diagnosed during 1995-1999.For several cancers, survival in Britain was slightly higher than the mean survival in Europe; this represented some 110-180 premature deaths avoided each year during the period 1985-2003. CONCLUSIONS: Avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients diagnosed in Britain during 1985-1999 has represented 6-7% of cancer-related mortality compared with the mean survival in Europe. Compared with the highest levels of survival in Europe, the reduction from 12.2% to 10.6% of cancer-related mortality reflects small but steady progress over the period 1985-2003

Research priorities for European paediatric emergency medicine

Objective Research in European Paediatric Emergency Medicine (REPEM) network is a collaborative group of 69 paediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physicians from 20 countries in Europe, initiated in 2006. To further improve paediatric emergency care in Europe, the aim of this study was to define research priorities for PEM in Europe to guide the development of future research projects. Design and Setting We carried out an online survey in a modified three-stage Delphi study. Eligible participants were members of the REPEM network. In stage 1, the REPEM steering committee prepared a list of research topics. In stage 2, REPEM members rated on a 6-point scale research topics and they could add research topics and comment on the list for further refinement. Stage 3 included further prioritisation using the Hanlon Process of Prioritisation (HPP) to give more emphasis to the feasibility of a research topic. Results Based on 52 respondents (response rates per stage varying from 41% to 57%), we identified the conditions 'fever', 'sepsis' and 'respiratory infections', and the processes/interventions 'biomarkers', 'risk stratification' and 'practice variation' as common themes of research interest. The HPP identified highest priority for 4 of the 5 highest prioritised items by the Delphi process, incorporating prevalence and severity of each condition and feasibility of undertaking such research. Conclusions While the high diversity in emergency department (ED) populations, cultures, healthcare systems and healthcare delivery in European PEM prompts to focus on practice variation of ED conditions, our defined research priority list will help guide further collaborative research efforts within the REPEM network to improve PEM care in Europe.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Antibiotic Prescriptions and Prophylaxis in Italian Children. Is It Time to Change? Data from the ARPEC Project.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobials are the most commonly prescribed drugs. Many studies have evaluated antibiotic prescriptions in the paediatric outpatient but few studies describing the real antibiotic consumption in Italian children's hospitals have been published. Point-prevalence survey (PPS) has been shown to be a simple, feasible and reliable standardized method for antimicrobials surveillance in children and neonates admitted to the hospital. In this paper, we presented data from a PPS on antimicrobial prescriptions carried out in 7 large Italian paediatric institutions. METHODS: A 1-day PPS on antibiotic use in hospitalized neonates and children was performed in Italy between October and December 2012 as part of the Antibiotic Resistance and Prescribing in European Children project (ARPEC). Seven institutions in seven Italian cities were involved. The survey included all admitted patients less than 18 years of age present in the ward at 8:00 am on the day of the survey, who had at least one on-going antibiotic prescription. For all patients data about age, weight, underlying disease, antimicrobial agent, dose and indication for treatment were collected. RESULTS: The PPS was performed in 61 wards within 7 Italian institutions. A total of 899 patients were eligible and 349 (38.9%) had an on-going prescription for one or more antibiotics, with variable rates among the hospitals (25.7% - 53.8%). We describe antibiotic prescriptions separately in neonates ( = 30 days to <18 years old). In the neonatal cohort, 62.8% received antibiotics for prophylaxis and only 37.2% on those on antibiotics were treated for infection. Penicillins and aminoglycosides were the most prescribed antibiotic classes. In the paediatric cohort, 64.4% of patients were receiving antibiotics for treatment of infections and 35.5% for prophylaxis. Third generation cephalosporins and penicillin plus inhibitors were the top two antibiotic classes. The main reason for prescribing antibiotic therapy in children was lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), followed by febrile neutropenia/fever in oncologic patients, while, in neonates, sepsis was the most common indication for treatment. Focusing on prescriptions for LRTI, 43.3% of patients were treated with 3rd generation cephalosporins, followed by macrolides (26.9%), quinolones (16.4%) and carbapenems (14.9%) and 50.1% of LRTI cases were receiving more than one antibiotic. For neutropenic fever/fever in oncologic patients, the preferred antibiotics were penicillins with inhibitors (47.8%), followed by carbapenems (34.8%), aminoglycosides (26.1%) and glycopeptides (26.1%). Overall, the 60.9% of patients were treated with a combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insight on the Italian situation in terms of antibiotic prescriptions in hospitalized neonates and children. An over-use of third generation cephalosporins both for prophylaxis and treatment was the most worrisome finding. A misuse and abuse of carbapenems and quinolones was also noted. Antibiotic stewardship programs should immediately identify feasible targets to monitor and modify the prescription patterns in children's hospital, also considering the continuous and alarming emergence of MDR bacteria