No abstract

ObjectivesAs part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) SURVMARK-2 project, we provide the most recent estimates of colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries by age and stage at diagnosis.MethodsData from 386 870 patients diagnosed during 2010–2014 from 19 cancer registries in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) were analysed. 1-year and 5-year net survival from colon and rectal cancer were estimated by stage at diagnosis, age and country,Results(One1-year) and 5-year net survival varied between (77.1% and 87.5%) 59.1% and 70.9% and (84.8% and 90.0%) 61.6% and 70.9% for colon and rectal cancer, respectively. Survival was consistently higher in Australia, Canada and Norway, with smaller proportions of patients with metastatic disease in Canada and Australia. International differences in (1-year) and 5-year survival were most pronounced for regional and distant colon cancer ranging between (86.0% and 94.1%) 62.5% and 77.5% and (40.7% and 56.4%) 8.0% and 17.3%, respectively. Similar patterns were observed for rectal cancer. Stage distribution of colon and rectal cancers by age varied across countries with marked survival differences for patients with metastatic disease and diagnosed at older ages (irrespective of stage).ConclusionsSurvival disparities for colon and rectal cancer across high-income countries are likely explained by earlier diagnosis in some countries and differences in treatment for regional and distant disease, as well as older age at diagnosis. Differences in cancer registration practice and different staging systems across countries may have impacted the comparisons.

IntroductionSurvival from oesophageal cancer remains poor, even across high-income countries. Ongoing changes in the epidemiology of the disease highlight the need for survival assessments by its two main histological subtypes, adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).MethodsThe ICBP SURVMARK-2 project, a platform for international comparisons of cancer survival, collected cases of oesophageal cancer diagnosed 1995 to 2014, followed until 31st December 2015, from cancer registries covering seven participating countries with similar access to healthcare (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK). 1-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival alongside incidence rates were calculated by country, subtype, sex, age group and period of diagnosis.Results111 894 cases of AC and 73 408 cases of SCC were included in the analysis. Marked improvements in survival were observed over the 20-year period in each country, particularly for AC, younger age groups and 1 year after diagnosis. Survival was consistently higher for both subtypes in Australia and Ireland followed by Norway, Denmark, New Zealand, the UK and Canada. During 2010 to 2014, survival was higher for AC compared with SCC, with 1-year survival ranging from 46.9% (Canada) to 54.4% (Ireland) for AC and 39.6% (Denmark) to 53.1% (Australia) for SCC.ConclusionMarked improvements in both oesophageal AC and SCC survival suggest advances in treatment. Less marked improvements 3 years after diagnosis, among older age groups and patients with SCC, highlight the need for further advances in early detection and treatment of oesophageal cancer alongside primary prevention to reduce the overall burden from the disease.

No abstract

No abstract

We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on cancer screening in Manitoba, Canada using an interrupted time series (ITS) design and data from Manitoba's population-based, organized cancer screening programs from April 2020 to August 2021. In June 2020 (breast screening was suspended during April and May 2020), there was a 54% decrease between the predicted (i.e., observed data produced from regression models) and expected (i.e., counterfactual values produced for the COVID-19 period by assuming COVID-19 did not occur) number of screening mammograms (ratio = 0.46, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.28–0.64). By December 2020, there was no significant difference between predicted and expected number of screening mammograms (ratio = 0.95, 95% CI 0.80–1.10). In April 2020, there was an 83% decrease in the number of Pap tests (ratio = 0.17, 95% CI 0.04–0.30). By January 2021, there was no significant difference between predicted and expected number of Pap tests (ratio = 0.93, 95% CI 0.81–1.06). In April 2020, there was an 81% decrease in the number of screening program fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) (ratio = 0.19, 95% CI 0.0–0.44). By September 2020, there was no significant difference between predicted and expected number of FOBTs (ratio = 0.95, 95% CI 0.65–1.24). The estimated cumulative deficit (i.e., backlog) from April 2020 to August 2021 was 17,370 screening mammograms, 22,086 Pap tests, and 5253 screening program FOBTs. Overall, screening programs adapted quickly to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional strategies may be needed to address remaining backlogs.

IntroductionLung cancer has a poor prognosis that varies internationally when assessed by the two major histological subgroups (non-small cell (NSCLC) and small cell (SCLC)).Method236 114 NSCLC and 43 167 SCLC cases diagnosed during 2010–2014 in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK were included in the analyses. One-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival (NS) was estimated by sex, histological type, stage and country.ResultsOne-year and 3-year NS was consistently higher for Canada and Norway, and lower for the UK, New Zealand and Ireland, irrespective of stage at diagnosis. Three-year NS for NSCLC ranged from 19.7% for the UK to 27.1% for Canada for men and was consistently higher for women (25.3% in the UK; 35.0% in Canada) partly because men were diagnosed at more advanced stages. International differences in survival for NSCLC were largest for regional stage and smallest at the advanced stage. For SCLC, 3-year NS also showed a clear female advantage with the highest being for Canada (13.8% for women; 9.1% for men) and Norway (12.8% for women; 9.7% for men).ConclusionDistribution of stage at diagnosis among lung cancer cases differed by sex, histological subtype and country, which may partly explain observed survival differences. Yet, survival differences were also observed within stages, suggesting that quality of treatment, healthcare system factors and prevalence of comorbid conditions may also influence survival. Other possible explanations include differences in data collection practice, as well as differences in histological verification, staging and coding across jurisdictions.

ObjectiveDifferences in time intervals to diagnosis and treatment between jurisdictions may contribute to previously reported differences in stage at diagnosis and survival. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of routes to diagnosis and time intervals from symptom onset until treatment start for patients with lung cancer.DesignNewly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, their primary care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists (CTSs) were surveyed in Victoria (Australia), Manitoba and Ontario (Canada), Northern Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales (UK), Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Using Wales as the reference jurisdiction, the 50th, 75th and 90th percentiles for intervals were compared using quantile regression adjusted for age, gender and comorbidity.ParticipantsConsecutive newly diagnosed patients with lung cancer, aged ≥40 years, diagnosed between October 2012 and March 2015 were identified through cancer registries. Of 10 203 eligible symptomatic patients contacted, 2631 (27.5%) responded and 2143 (21.0%) were included in the analysis. Data were also available from 1211 (56.6%) of their PCPs and 643 (37.0%) of their CTS.Primary and secondary outcome measuresInterval lengths (days; primary), routes to diagnosis and symptoms (secondary).ResultsWith the exception of Denmark (−49 days), in all other jurisdictions, the median adjusted total interval from symptom onset to treatment, for respondents diagnosed in 2012–2015, was similar to that of Wales (116 days). Denmark had shorter median adjusted primary care interval (−11 days) than Wales (20 days); Sweden had shorter (−20) and Manitoba longer (+40) median adjusted diagnostic intervals compared with Wales (45 days). Denmark (−13), Manitoba (−11), England (−9) and Northern Ireland (−4) had shorter median adjusted treatment intervals than Wales (43 days). The differences were greater for the 10% of patients who waited the longest. Based on overall trends, jurisdictions could be grouped into those with trends of reduced, longer and similar intervals to Wales. The proportion of patients diagnosed following presentation to the PCP ranged from 35% to 75%.ConclusionThere are differences between jurisdictions in interval to treatment, which are magnified in patients with lung cancer who wait the longest. The data could help jurisdictions develop more focused lung cancer policy and targeted clinical initiatives. Future analysis will explore if these differences in intervals impact on stage or survival.