Lower incidence rates but thicker melanomas in Eastern Europe before 1992: A comparison with Western Europe

The objective of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of melanoma across Europe with regard to Breslow thickness and body-site distribution. Incidence data from Cancer Incidence in 5 Continents and the EUROCARE-melanoma database were used: 28 117 melanoma cases from 20 cancer registries in 12 European countries, diagnosed between 1978 and 1992. Regression analysis and general linear modelling were used to analyse the data. Melanomas in Eastern Europe were on average 1.4 mm thicker (P<0.05) than in Western Europe and appeared more often on the trunk. From 1978 to 1992, their Breslow thickness had decreased in Western but not Eastern Europe. There was a latitude gradient in incidence, with highest rates in southern regions in Eastern Europe and an inverse gradient in Western Europe, with highest rates in the North. Mortality:incidence ratios were less favourable in southern parts across Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. If Eastern European populations copy the sunbathing behaviour of the West it is likely that in the near future a higher melanoma incidence can be expected there

Age and case mix-standardised survival for all cancer patients in Europe 1999–2007: Results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study

Background Overall survival after cancer is frequently used when assessing a health care service’s performance as a whole. It is mainly used by the public, politicians and the media, and is often dismissed by clinicians because of the heterogeneous mix of different cancers, risk factors and treatment modalities. Here we give survival details for all cancers combined in Europe, correlating it with economic variables to suggest reasons for differences. Methods We computed age and cancer site case-mix standardised relative survival for all cancers combined (ACRS) for 29 countries participating in the EUROCARE-5 project with data on more than 7.5 million cancer cases from 87 population-based cancer registries, using complete and period approach. Results Denmark, United Kingdom (UK) and Eastern European countries had lower survival than neighbouring countries. Five-year ACRS has been increasing throughout Europe, and substantial increases, between 1999–2001 and 2005–2007, have been achieved in countries where survival was lower in the past. Five-year ACRS for men and women are positively correlated with macro-economic variables like the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Total National Expenditure on Health (TNEH) (R2 about 70%). Countries with recent larger increases in GDP and TNEH had greater increases in cancer survival. Conclusions ACRS serves to compare all cancer survival in Europe taking account of the geographical variability in case-mixes. The EUROCARE-5 data on ACRS confirm previous EUROCARE findings. Survival appears to correlate with macro-economic determinants, particularly with investments in the health care syste

Survival for eight major cancers and all cancers combined for European adults diagnosed in 1995-99: results of the EUROCARE-4 study.

International audienceBACKGROUND: EUROCARE is the largest population-based cooperative study on survival of patients with cancer. The EUROCARE project aims to regularly monitor, analyse, and explain survival trends and between-country differences in survival. This report (EUROCARE-4) presents survival data for eight selected cancer sites and for all cancers combined, diagnosed in adult (aged >/=15 years) Europeans in 1995-99 and followed up until the end of 2003. METHODS: We analysed data from 83 cancer registries in 23 European countries on 2 699 086 adult cancer cases that were diagnosed in 1995-99 and followed up to December, 2003. We calculated country-specific and mean-weighted age-adjusted 5-year relative survival for eight major cancers. Additionally, case-mix-adjusted 5-year survival for all cancers combined was calculated by countries ranked by total national expenditure on health (TNEH). Changes to survival were analysed relative to cases diagnosed in 1990-94. FINDINGS: Mean age-adjusted 5-year relative survival for colorectal (53.8% [95% CI 53.3-54.1]), lung (12.3% [12.1-12.5]), breast (78.9% [78.6-79.2]), prostate (75.7% [75.2-76.2]), and ovarian (36.3% [35.7-37.0]) cancer was highest in Nordic countries (except Denmark) and central Europe, intermediate in southern Europe, lower in the UK and Ireland, and worst in eastern Europe. Survival for melanoma (81.6% [81.0-82.3]), cancer of the testis (94.2% [93.4-95.0]), and Hodgkin's disease (80.0% [79.0-81.0]) varied little with geography. All-cancer survival correlated with TNEH for most countries. Denmark and UK had lower all-cancer survival than countries with similar TNEH; Finland had high all-cancer survival, but moderate TNEH. Survival increased and intercountry survival differences narrowed between the data for 1990-94 and 1995-99 for, notably, Hodgkin's disease (range 66.1-82.9 [IQR 72.2-78.6] vs 74.0-83.9 [78.6-81.9]), colorectal (29.4-56.7 [45.8-54.1] vs 38.8-59.7 [50.7-57.5]), and breast (61.7-82.7 [72.3-78.3] vs 69.3-87.6 [76.6-82.7]) sites. INTERPRETATION: Increases in survival and decreases in geographic differences over time, which are mainly due to improvements in health-care services in countries with poor survival, might indicate better cancer care. Wealthy countries with high TNEH generally had good cancer outcomes, but those with conspicuously worse outcomes than those with similar TNEH might not be allocating health resources efficiently

Life tables for world-wide comparison of relative survival for cancer (CONCORD study).

BACKGROUND: The CONCORD study compares population-based relative survival from cancer using data from cancer registries in five continents. To estimate relative survival, general mortality life tables are required. Available statistics are incomplete, so various approaches are used to construct complete life tables. This article outlines how the life tables were constructed for CONCORD; it compares life expectancy at birth between 101 populations covered by cancer registries in 31 countries and compares the impact of two approaches to the deployment of life tables in relative survival analysis. METHODS: The CONCORD approach, using specific mathematical methods, produced complete (single-year-of-age) life tables by sex, cancer registry area, calendar year (1990-1999) and race (only in the USA). In order to study the impact of different approaches, we compared relative survival in the USA using the US national life table, centered on the relevant census years, and the CONCORD approach. We estimated relative survival in each American participating cancer registry for patients diagnosed with breast (women), colorectal or prostate cancer during 1990-1994 and followed up to 1999. RESULTS: Average life expectancy at birth during 1990-1999 varied in CONCORD cancer registry areas from 64 to 78 years in males and from 71 to 84 years in females. It increased during the 1990s more in men than in women. In the USA, it was lower in blacks than in whites. Relative survival in American populations was lower with the CONCORD approach, which incorporates trends and geographic variation in background mortality, than with the USA census life tables. CONCLUSIONS: International variation in background mortality by geographic area, calendar time, race, age and sex is wide. We suggest that in international comparisons of cancer relative survival, complete life tables that are specific for cancer registry area, calendar year and race should be used

The EUROCARE-5 study on cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007: Database, quality checks and statistical analysis methods.

BACKGROUND: Since 25years the EUROCARE study monitors the survival of cancer patients in Europe through centralised collection, quality check and statistical analysis of population-based cancer registries (CRs) data. The European population covered by the study increased remarkably in the latest round. The study design and statistical methods were also changed to improve timeliness and comparability of survival estimates. To interpret the EUROCARE-5 results on adult cancer patients better here we assess the impact of these changes on data quality and on survival comparisons. METHODS: In EUROCARE-5 the survival differences by area were studied applying the complete cohort approach to data on nearly nine million cancer patients diagnosed in 2000-2007 and followed up to 2008. Survival time trends were analysed applying the period approach to data on about 10 million cancer cases diagnosed from 1995 to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Differently from EUROCARE-4, multiple primary cancers were included and relative survival was estimated with the Ederer II method. RESULTS: EUROCARE-5 covered a population of 232 million resident persons, corresponding to 50% of the 29 participating countries. The population coverage increased particularly in Eastern Europe. Cases identified from death certificate only (DCO) were on average 2.9%, range 0-12%. Microscopically confirmed cases amounted to over 85% in most CRs. Compared to previous methods, including multiple cancers and using the Ederer II estimator reduced survival estimates by 0.4 and 0.3 absolute percentage points, on average. CONCLUSIONS: The increased population size and registration coverage of the EUROCARE-5 study ensures more robust and comparable estimates across European countries. This enlargement did not impact on data quality, which was generally satisfactory. Estimates may be slightly inflated in countries with high or null DCO proportions, especially for poor prognosis cancers. The updated methods improved the comparability of survival estimates between recently and long-term established registries and reduced biases due to informative censoring

Mortality from cancer and other causes among airline cabin attendants in Europe: a collaborative cohort study in eight countries

There is concern about the health effects of exposure to cosmic radiation during air travel. To study the potential health effects of this and occupational exposures, the authors investigated mortality patterns among more than 44,000 airline cabin crew members in Europe. A cohort study was performed in eight European countries, yielding approximately 655,000 person-years of follow-up. Observed numbers of deaths were compared with expected numbers based on national mortality rates. Among female cabin crew, overall mortality (standardized mortality ratio (SMR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.73, 0.88) and all-cancer mortality (SMR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.95) were slightly reduced, while breast cancer mortality was slightly but nonsignificantly increased (SMR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.48). In contrast, overall mortality (SMR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.18) and mortality from skin cancer (for malignant melanoma, SMR = 1.93, 95% CI: 0.70, 4.44) among male cabin crew were somewhat increased. The authors noted excess mortality from aircraft accidents and from acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in males. Among airline cabin crew in Europe, there was no increase in mortality that could be attributed to cosmic radiation or other occupational exposures to any substantial extent. The risk of skin cancer among male crew members requires further attention

Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study (CONCORD).

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival varies widely between countries. The CONCORD study provides survival estimates for 1.9 million adults (aged 15-99 years) diagnosed with a first, primary, invasive cancer of the breast (women), colon, rectum, or prostate during 1990-94 and followed up to 1999, by use of individual tumour records from 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries on five continents. This is, to our knowledge, the first worldwide analysis of cancer survival, with standard quality-control procedures and identical analytic methods for all datasets. METHODS: To compensate for wide international differences in general population (background) mortality by age, sex, country, region, calendar period, and (in the USA) ethnic origin, we estimated relative survival, the ratio of survival noted in the patients with cancer, and the survival that would have been expected had they been subject only to the background mortality rates. 2800 life tables were constructed. Survival estimates were also adjusted for differences in the age structure of populations of patients with cancer. FINDINGS: Global variation in cancer survival was very wide. 5-year relative survival for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer was generally higher in North America, Australia, Japan, and northern, western, and southern Europe, and lower in Algeria, Brazil, and eastern Europe. CONCORD has provided the first opportunity to estimate cancer survival in 11 states in USA covered by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR), and the study covers 42% of the US population, four-fold more than previously available. Cancer survival in black men and women was systematically and substantially lower than in white men and women in all 16 states and six metropolitan areas included. Relative survival for all ethnicities combined was 2-4% lower in states covered by NPCR than in areas covered by the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. Age-standardised relative survival by use of the appropriate race-specific and state-specific life tables was up to 2% lower for breast cancer and up to 5% lower for prostate cancer than with the census-derived national life tables used by the SEER Program. These differences in population coverage and analytical method have both contributed to the survival deficit noted between Europe and the USA, from which only SEER data have been available until now. INTERPRETATION: Until now, direct comparisons of cancer survival between high-income and low-income countries have not generally been available. The information provided here might therefore be a useful stimulus for change. The findings should eventually facilitate joint assessment of international trends in incidence, survival, and mortality as indicators of cancer control

Burden and centralised treatment in Europe of rare tumours: results of RARECAREnet - a population-based study

Background Rare cancers pose challenges for diagnosis, treatments, and clinical decision making. Information about rare cancers is scant. The RARECARE project defined rare cancers as those with an annual incidence of less than six per 100 000 people in European Union (EU). We updated the estimates of the burden of rare cancers in Europe, their time trends in incidence and survival, and provide information about centralisation of treatments in seven European countries. Methods We analysed data from 94 cancer registries for more than 2 million rare cancer diagnoses, to estimate European incidence and survival in 2000–07 and the corresponding time trends during 1995–2007. Incidence was calculated as the number of new cases divided by the corresponding total person-years in the population. 5-year relative survival was calculated by the Ederer-2 method. Seven registries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and the Navarra region in Spain) provided additional data for hospitals treating about 220 000 cases diagnosed in 2000–07. We also calculated hospital volume admission as the number of treatments provided by each hospital rare cancer group sharing the same referral pattern. Findings Rare cancers accounted for 24% of all cancers diagnosed in the EU during 2000–07. The overall incidence rose annually by 0.5% (99·8% CI 0·3–0·8). 5-year relative survival for all rare cancers was 48·5% (95% CI 48·4 to 48·6), compared with 63·4% (95% CI 63·3 to 63·4) for all common cancers. 5-year relative survival increased (overall 2·9%, 95% CI 2·7 to 3·2), from 1999–2001 to 2007–09, and for most rare cancers, with the largest increases for haematological tumours and sarcomas. The amount of centralisation of rare cancer treatment varied widely between cancers and between countries. The Netherlands and Slovenia had the highest treatment volumes. Interpretation Our study benefits from the largest pool of population-based registries to estimate incidence and survival of about 200 rare cancers. Incidence trends can be explained by changes in known risk factors, improved diagnosis, and registration problems. Survival could be improved by early diagnosis, new treatments, and improved case management. The centralisation of treatment could be improved in the seven European countries we studied. Funding The European Commission (Chafea)