Dataset Information

Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival?

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Walters S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4559829 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival?

Walters Sarah S Benitez-Majano Sara S Muller Patrick P Coleman Michel P MP Allemani Claudia C Butler John J Peake Mick M Guren Marianne Grønlie MG Glimelius Bengt B Bergström Stefan S Påhlman Lars L Rachet Bernard B

British journal of cancer 20150804 5

<h4>Background</h4>We provide an up-to-date international comparison of cancer survival, assessing whether England is 'closing the gap' compared with other high-income countries.<h4>Methods</h4>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, ...[more]

PMID: 26241817

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe rising economic burden of cancer on patients is an important determinant of access to treatment initiation and adherence in India. Several publicly financed health insurance (PFHI) schemes have been launched in India, with treatment for cancer as an explicit inclusion in the health benefit packages (HBPs). Although, financial toxicity is widely acknowledged to be a potential consequence of costly cancer treatment, little is known about its prevalence and determinants among the Indian population. There is a need to determine the optimal strategy for clinicians and cancer care centers to address the issue of high costs of care in order to minimize the financial toxicity, promote access to high value care and reduce health disparities.MethodsA total of 12,148 cancer patients were recruited at seven purposively selected cancer centres in India, to assess the out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and financial toxicity among cancer patients. Mean OOPE incurred for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, was estimated by cancer site, stage, type of treatment and socio-demographic characteristics. Economic impact of cancer care on household financial risk protection was assessed using standard indicators of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE) and impoverishment, along with the determinants using logistic regression.ResultsMean direct OOPE per outpatient consultation and per episode of hospitalization was estimated as ₹8,053 (US$ 101) and ₹39,085 (US$ 492) respectively. Per patient annual direct OOPE incurred on cancer treatment was estimated as ₹331,177 (US$ 4,171). Diagnostics (36.4%) and medicines (45%) are major contributors of OOPE for outpatient treatment and hospitalization, respectively. The overall prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was higher among patients seeking outpatient treatment (80.4% and 67%, respectively) than hospitalization (29.8% and 17.2%, respectively). The odds of incurring CHE was 7.4 times higher among poorer patients [Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 7.414] than richest. Enrolment in PM-JAY (CHE AOR = 0.426, and impoverishment AOR = 0.395) or a state sponsored scheme (CHE AOR = 0.304 and impoverishment AOR = 0.371) resulted in a significant reduction in CHE and impoverishment for an episode of hospitalization. The prevalence of CHE and impoverishment was significantly higher with hospitalization in private hospitals and longer duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001). The extent of CHE and impoverishment due to direct costs incurred on outpatient treatment increased from 83% to 99.7% and, 63.9% to 97.1% after considering both direct and indirect costs borne by the patient and caregivers, respectively. In case of hospitalization, the extent of CHE increased from 23.6% (direct cost) to 59.4% (direct+ indirect costs) and impoverishment increased from 14.1% (direct cost) to 27% due to both direct and indirect cost of cancer treatment.ConclusionThere is high economic burden on patients and their families due to cancer treatment. The increase in population and cancer services coverage of PFHI schemes, creating prepayment mechanisms like E-RUPI for outpatient diagnostic and staging services, and strengthening public hospitals can potentially reduce the financial burden among cancer patients in India. The disaggregated OOPE estimates could be useful input for future health technology analyses to determine cost-effective treatment strategies.

Project description:IntroductionThe Irish Prostate Cancer Outcomes Research (IPCOR) Study collected longitudinal data on men newly diagnosed with Prostate Cancer (PC). Understanding the nuances of disease presentation is essential, considering the high incidence of PC in Ireland. This study aims to characterise disease presentation features, identify factors related to socio demographic disparities in presentation following opportunistic screening, and shed light on potential inequality challenges within Ireland's healthcare structure.MethodsData were collected on demographics, diagnosis, and treatment of 6,816 men newly diagnosed with PC across 16 hospitals in the Republic of Ireland from February 2016 to January 2020. A complete case analysis was carried out, complemented by a sensitivity analysis for addressing sites with high rates of missing values. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine the association between various predictor variables and the initial presentation to the urology clinic subsequent to opportunistic screening.ResultsA multivariable logistic regression model revealed that the type of hospital was a key determinant in post-opportunistic screening presentation, with patients in public hospitals 45.7% more likely to be presented following screening compared to those in private hospitals. Urban residents were 34% more likely to present following screening than rural ones. Age negatively influenced presentation following screening likelihood, decreasing by 3.4% yearly.DiscussionOur research has highlighted the key features of PC presentation in Ireland, revealing potential inequalities affecting mainly urban populations, middle socioeconomic groups, and individuals with inadequate healthcare coverage. While the differences we observed in various groups may appear subtle and may indicate the success of the Rapid Access Prostate Clinics, they are still significant in pinpointing specific populations that require special attention.ConclusionsBy addressing these nuanced differences in access to healthcare, socioeconomic status, and urban versus rural residence and implementing tailored strategies, we can work towards closing disparity gaps in PC, ultimately leading to improved health outcomes and equity across all population segments.

Dataset Information

Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets