Background:We provide an up-to-date international comparison of cancer survival, assessing whether England is ‘closing the gap' compared with other high-income countries.Methods:Net survival was estimated using national, population-based, cancer registrations for 1.9 million patients diagnosed with a cancer of the stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast (women) or ovary in England during 1995–2012. Trends during 1995–2009 were compared with estimates for Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Clinicians were interviewed to help interpret trends.Results:Survival from all cancers remained lower in England than in Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden by 2005–2009. For some cancers, survival improved more in England than in other countries between 1995–1999 and 2005–2009; for example, 1-year survival from stomach, rectal, lung, breast and ovarian cancers improved more than in Australia and Canada. There has been acceleration in lung cancer survival improvement in England recently, with average annual improvement in 1-year survival rising to 2% during 2010–2012. Survival improved more in Denmark than in England for rectal and lung cancers between 1995–1999 and 2005–2009.Conclusions:Survival has increased in England since the mid-1990s in the context of strategic reform in cancer control, however, survival remains lower than in comparable developed countries and continued investment is needed to close the international survival gap.

Acquiring real-world evidence is crucial to support health policy, but observational studies are prone to serious biases. An approach was recently proposed to overcome confounding and immortal-time biases within the emulated trial framework. This tutorial provides a step-by-step description of the design and analysis of emulated trials, as well as R and Stata code, to facilitate its use in practice. The steps consist in: (i) specifying the target trial and inclusion criteria; (ii) cloning patients; (iii) defining censoring and survival times; (iv) estimating the weights to account for informative censoring introduced by design; and (v) analysing these data. These steps are illustrated with observational data to assess the benefit of surgery among 70–89-year-old patients diagnosed with early-stage lung cancer. Because of the severe unbalance of the patient characteristics between treatment arms (surgery yes/no), a naïve Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of the initial cohort severely overestimated the benefit of surgery on 1-year survival (22% difference), as did a survival analysis of the cloned dataset when informative censoring was ignored (17% difference). By contrast, the estimated weights adequately removed the covariate imbalance. The weighted analysis still showed evidence of a benefit, though smaller (11% difference), of surgery among older lung cancer patients on 1-year survival. Complementing the CERBOT tool, this tutorial explains how to proceed to conduct emulated trials using observational data in the presence of immortal-time bias. The strength of this approach is its transparency and its principles that are easily understandable by non-specialists.

SummaryBackgroundSurvival from colorectal cancer has been shown to be lower in Denmark and England than in comparable high-income countries. We used data from national colorectal cancer registries to assess whether differences in the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery could contribute to international differences in colorectal cancer survival.MethodsIn this population-based study, we collected data from all patients aged 18–99 years diagnosed with primary, invasive, colorectal adenocarcinoma from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2012, in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden, from national colorectal cancer registries. We estimated age-standardised net survival using multivariable modelling, and we compared the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery by stage and age. We used logistic regression to predict the resectional surgery status patients would have had if they had been treated as in the best performing country, given their individual characteristics.FindingsWe extracted registry data for 139 457 adult patients with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma: 12 958 patients in Denmark, 97 466 in England, 11 450 in Norway, and 17 583 in Sweden. 3-year colon cancer survival was lower in England (63·9%, 95% CI 63·5–64·3) and Denmark (65·7%, 64·7–66·8) than in Norway (69·5%, 68·4–70·5) and Sweden (72·1%, 71·2–73·0). Rectal cancer survival was lower in England (69·7%, 69·1–70·3) than in the other three countries (Denmark 72·5%, 71·1–74·0; Sweden 74·1%, 72·7–75·4; and Norway 75·0%, 73·1–76·8). We found no significant differences in survival for patients with stage I disease in any of the four countries. 3-year survival after stage II or III rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was consistently lower in England (stage II rectal cancer 86·4%, 95% CI 85·0–87·6; stage III rectal cancer 75·5%, 74·2–76·7; and stage IV colon cancer 20·5%, 19·9–21·1) than in Norway (94·1%, 91·5–96·0; 83·4%, 80·1–86·1; and 33·0%, 31·0–35·1) and Sweden (92·9%, 90·8–94·6; 80·6%, 78·2–82·7; and 23·7%, 22·0–25·3). 3-year survival after stage II rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was also lower in England than in Denmark (stage II rectal cancer 91·2%, 88·8–93·1; and stage IV colon cancer 23·5%, 21·9–25·1). The total proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery ranged from 47 803 (68·4%) of 69 867 patients in England to 9582 (81·3%) of 11 786 in Sweden for colon cancer, and from 16 544 (59·9%) of 27 599 in England to 4106 (70·8%) of 5797 in Sweden for rectal cancer. This range was widest for patients older than 75 years (colon cancer 19 078 [59·7%] of 31 946 patients in England to 4429 [80·9%] of 5474 in Sweden; rectal cancer 4663 [45·7%] of 10 195 in England to 1342 [61·9%] of 2169 in Sweden), and the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was consistently lowest in England. The age gradient of the decline in the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was steeper in England than in the other three countries in all stage categories. In the hypothetical scenario where all patient...

BackgroundCancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.Methods and findingsWe used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009–2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record.The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment (‘met/not met’). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation.The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9–89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1–91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent.There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.ConclusionsBased on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the...