Cancer prevalence in the UK: results from the EUROPREVAL study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence, mortality and survival statistics for the UK are routinely available; however, data on prevalence, which is generally regarded as an important measure for health planning and resource allocation, are relatively scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight cancer registries in the UK, covering more than half the population, provided data based on >1.5 million cases of cancer. Total prevalence was calculated using methods developed for the EUROPREVAL study, based on modelling incidence and survival trends. The prevalence of cancers of the stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast (in females), cervix uteri, corpus uteri and prostate, melanoma of skin, Hodgkin's disease, leukaemia and all malignant neoplasms combined, was estimated for the UK for the end of 1992. RESULTS: Overall, approximately 1.5% of males and 2.5% of females in the UK population at the end of 1992 were living with a diagnosis of cancer. These proportions increased steeply with age, with approximately 7.5% (7.3% and 7.8%, in males and females, respectively) of people aged > or =65 years living with a diagnosis of cancer. Of the individual cancers, by far the highest prevalence (almost 1%) was seen for breast cancer in females; more than one in three of all living female cancer patients had been diagnosed with breast cancer. For males, around half of prevalent cases had been diagnosed >5 years previously and 30% >10 years previously; for females, these figures were both higher, at approximately 60% and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The estimates of prevalence presented here comprise: recently diagnosed patients in need of treatment and monitoring; long-term survivors, some of whom will nevertheless eventually die from the cancer, while others may be cured of the disease; and patients in the terminal phase who are dying from the cancer. Further work should attempt to identify the proportions of patients in the different phases of care in order to optimise the use of prevalence estimates in health care planning.     

The prevalence of colorectal cancer in Italy

AIMS: To analyze the prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in different areas of Italy by age, interval since diagnosis and disease stage at diagnosis, and to estimate the prevalence of CRC. These data provide estimates of patient demand on health resources. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eleven Italian cancer registries (CRs) provided data on 33,740 patients observed for up to 15 years. For the 1,829 cases from the specialized colorectal cancer registry of Modena we analyzed prevalence by Dukes' stage and family history. PREVAL software produced observed prevalence figures by time from diagnosis; to determine the total prevalence, correction factors were applied to the observed data. RESULTS: At the end of 1992, five-year CRC prevalence was high (close to 200 per 100,000) in Genova, Parma, Romagna and Firenze, and low (around 75 per 100,000) in the southern areas of Latina and Ragusa. For all CRs, 86 patients per 100,000 population were alive up to 2 years from diagnosis and 77 per 100,000 between 2 and 5 years from diagnosis. The 5-year prevalence of patients diagnosed with Dukes' B or C (high risk of recurrence and requiring postoperative surveillance) was 152 per 100,000; that of Dukes' A patients 36 per 100,000 (considered cured after surgery and not requiring intensive follow-up or care); that of unstaged patients plus those with distant metastasis at diagnosis was 28 per 100,000 at 5 years (requiring palliative care but not follow-up). The 12-year prevalence of HNPCC was 23 per 100,000, or about 7% of the total; for such patients knowledge of the long-term prevalence is important because they are diagnosed young and are at high risk of multiple tumor development. CONCLUSIONS: 70% of the prevalent patients diagnosed within 5 years prior to the prevalence date were likely to require care for cancer recurrence, while 13% of the prevalent cases required care for distant metastases.     

The cure of cancer: A European perspective

Cancer survival analyses based on cancer registry data do not provide direct information on the main aim of cancer treatment, the cure of the patient. In fact, classic survival indicators do not distinguish between patients who are cured, and patients who will die of their disease and in whom prolongation of survival is the main objective of treatment.In this study, we applied parametric cure models to the cancer incidence and follow-up data provided by 49 EUROCARE-4 (European Cancer Registry-based study, fourth edition) cancer registries, with the aims of providing additional insights into the survival of European cancer patients diagnosed from 1988 to 1999, and of investigating between-population differences.Between-country estimates the proportion of cured patients varied from about 4–13% for lung cancer, from 9% to 30% for stomach cancer, from 25% to 49% for colon and rectum cancer, and from 55% to 73% for breast cancer. For all cancers combined, estimates varied between 21% and 47% in men, and 38% and 59% in women and were influenced by the distribution of cases by cancer site. Countries with high proportions of cured and long fatal case survival times for all cancers combined were characterised by generally favourable case mix. For the European pool of cases both the proportion of cured and the survival time of fatal cases were associated with age, and increased from the early to the latest diagnosis period. The increases over time in the proportions of Europeans estimated cured of lung, stomach and colon and rectum cancers are noteworthy and suggest genuine progress in cancer control. The proportion of cured of all cancers combined is a useful general indicator of cancer control as it reflects progress in diagnosis and treatment, as well as success in the prevention of rapidly fatal cancers.     

Overweight as an avoidable cause of cancer in Europe

There is growing evidence that excess body weight increases the risk of cancer at several sites, including kidney, endometrium, colon, prostate, gallbladder and breast in post-menopausal women. The proportion of all cancers attributable to overweight has, however, never been systematically estimated. We reviewed the epidemiological literature and quantitatively summarised, by meta-analysis, the relationship between excess weight and the risk of developing cancer at the 6 sites listed above. Estimates were then combined with sex-specific estimates of the prevalence of overweight [body mass index (BMI) 25-29 kg/m(2)] and obesity (BMI > or = 30 kg/m(2)) in each country in the European Union to obtain the proportion of cancers attributable to excess weight. Overall, excess body mass accounts for 5% of all cancers in the European Union, 3% in men and 6% in women, corresponding to 27,000 male and 45,000 female cancer cases yearly. The attributable proportion varied, in men, between 2.1% for Greece and 4.9% for Germany and, in women, between 3.9% for Denmark and 8.8% for Spain. The highest attributable proportions were obtained for cancers of the endometrium (39%), kidney (25% in both sexes) and gallbladder (25% in men and 24% in women). The largest number of attributable cases was for colon cancer (21,500 annual cases), followed by endometrium (14,000 cases) and breast (12,800 cases). Some 36,000 cases could be avoided by halving the prevalence of overweight and obese people in Europe.     

Colorectal cancer prevalence in France.

Cancer prevalence is a crucial indicator that allows the magnitude of the problem of colorectal cancer to be monitored. Population-based cancer registries with long-standing activity are the most appropriate tools for providing prevalence data. All colorectal cases registered between 1976 and 1995 in the C?te d'Or Cancer Registry have been considered in this study. Total prevalence (20 years) was the number of patients with a previously diagnosed colorectal cancer, alive on 31 December 1995. Cumulative recurrence rates up to 5 years after diagnosis were calculated and applied to the number of prevalent cases to estimate the number of recurrences by one-year intervals up to 5 years. The overall age-standardized prevalence rate was 170.8/100000, which yielded an estimated 185857 French people alive with a history of colorectal cancer. The 5-year prevalence rates were 149.4/100000, which represented 46.4% of prevalent cases. Five-year prevalence rates regularly increased with periods of diagnosis. These results represent useful indicators for monitoring the colorectal cancer problem and for health care planning.     

The prevalence of cancer: a review of the available data

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Cancer prevalence in a population, defined as the proportion - or the number - of people who were diagnosed with a cancer during their lives and are still alive at a given date, is a crucial indicator for heath care planning and resource allocation. Long-term population-based cancer registries (CR) are the appropriate tools to produce prevalence figures, which, however, are scarcely available. This paper contains a review up to 1999 of the published data world-wide (reports and articles) on cancer prevalence: including measured and estimated figures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on cancer prevalence from CRs are available for the Nordic countries, Connecticut, and Italy. In addition, electronic data are available for the European Union (EU). Data for the Nordic countries were first published in the mid-seventies, reporting the prevalence for 1970. The first data from Connecticut were available 10 years later. Estimates for all EU countries were published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 1997. In Italy, observed and estimated data on the prevalence of respiratory and digestive tract cancer and breast cancer have been published during the nineties, followed by a systematic analysis for all cancers in 1999. By using information obtained from CRs, cancer prevalence data were calculated directly (observed prevalence) by means of incidence and follow-up information on individual cancer patients, or indirectly (estimated prevalence) by means of mathematical models, which generally use epidemiological information at the aggregate level. RESULTS: Cancer prevalence for all cancers combined (proportions per 100,000 inhabitants) showed values of less than 700 in males and less than 800 in females in 1970 (Finland) to over 2,300 in males and over 3,000 in females in 1992 (Italian registries). With few exceptions, in each country and period considered the cancer sites contributing most to cancer prevalence are lung, colon-rectum, prostate and bladder in males, colon-rectum, breast, uterus (both cervix and corpus) and ovary in females. At present, comparison of measurements from different areas is difficult because there exists no standardized mode of presentation. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of their being potentially useful for health care planning, prevalence data have been produced inconsistently and late by cancer registries, at least in comparison with the systematic availability of incidence and survival statistics. The available data can be compared only to a limited extent due to differences in completeness, in the choice of indicators, in the standard populations, and in the frequency of publication. It would be desirable that in the future data will be produced systematically, with a higher level of standardization compared to the past, and, most importantly, on the same geographic and administrative scale as health-care decision-making.     

An estimate of the number of people in Italy living after a childhood cancer

Cancers diagnosed in children below the age of 15 years represent 1.2% of all cancer cases, and survival after a childhood cancer has greatly improved over the past 40 years in all high income countries. This study aims to estimate the number of people living in Italy after a childhood cancer for all cancers combined and for a selection of cancer types. We computed 15‐year prevalence using data from 15 Italian population‐based cancer registries (covering 19% of Italian population) and estimated complete prevalence for Italy by using the CHILDPREV method, implemented in the COMPREV software. A total of 44,135 persons were alive at January 1st, 2010 after a cancer diagnosed during childhood. This number corresponds to a proportion of 73 per 100,000 Italians and to about 2% of all prevalent cases. Among them, 54% were males and 64% had survived after being diagnosed before 1995, the start of the observation period. A quarter of all childhood prevalent cases were diagnosed with brain and central nervous system tumors, a quarter with acute lymphoid leukemia, and 7% with Hodgkin lymphoma. Nearly a quarter of prevalent patients were aged 40 years and older. Information about the number of people living after a childhood cancer in Italy by cancer type and their specific health care needs may be helpful to health‐care planners and clinicians in the development of guidelines aimed to reduce the burden of late effect of treatments during childhood.     

Breast cancer incidence and prevalence estimated from survival and mortality

Survival probability for female breast cancer patients was used to estimate incidence rates from breast cancer mortality data in Italy. The female breast cancer survival curve from the Lombardy Cancer Registry (LCR) was used to test the method on data from four local cancer registries, covering areas in different regions of Italy. In spite of the well known geographic variability of female breast cancer incidence and mortality, the results support the idea that survival probability does not change across the country and that the survival probability from the LCR is a good estimate of that in the country as a whole. Female breast cancer incidence and prevalence rates were then estimated for Italy, making use of a mathematical model specifically developed for chronic diseases. In 1985, crude incidence and prevalence rates of female breast cancer, for ages up to 74 years, were estimated as 71 and 701 per 100,000 women, respectively. Estimated incidence rates show a complex trend with age, increasing to a temporary pronounced peak at the age of 52. A marked cohort effect was found to increase significantly the risk of the disease from the 1886 to the 1930 birth cohorts by a factor of 2.9. After the 1930 cohort, risks have continued at a constant high level.Drs Capocaccia and Verdecchia are with the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy. Drs Micheli, Sant, Gatta, and Berrino are with the Lombardy Cancer Registry, Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. Reprint requests should be addressed to Dr Capocaccia at Viale Regina Elena 299, Rome, Italy.     

Primary cancers before and after prostate cancer diagnosis

BACKGROUND:

The occurrence of multiple cancers may indicate common etiology; and, although some studies have investigated the risk of second primary cancers after prostate cancer (PCa), there are no studies on cancers before PCa.

METHODS:

The PCBaSe Sweden database is based on the National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR), which covers >96% of PCa cases. The authors estimated the prevalence and cumulative incidence of different cancers before and after PCa diagnosis in 72,613 men according to PCa treatment and disease stage in PCBaSe and their matched comparison cohort of men who were free of PCa.

RESULTS:

In total, 6829 men were diagnosed with another primary cancer before their PCa diagnosis, including 138 men at the time of PCa diagnosis and 5230 men were diagnosed after PCa diagnosis. Cancer of the bladder or colon and nonmelanoma of the skin were the 3 most frequently observed cancers before and after PCa diagnosis. At the time of PCa diagnosis, the prevalence of these 3 cancers was 1.94% for bladder cancer, 1.08% for colon cancer, and 1.08% for nonmelanoma skin cancer, compared with 1.30%, 0.96%, and 1.03%, respectively, for the matched comparison cohort. Five years after PCa diagnosis, the difference in incidence proportion between PCa men and their comparison cohort was 7‰ (95% CI, 5.6‰‐8.5‰), 1.3‰ (0‰‐2.6‰), and 1.6‰ (0.6‰‐2.6‰) for these 3 cancers, respectively. From a uro‐oncologic point of view, it is interesting to note that the prevalence of kidney cancer at the time of PCa diagnosis was 0.42% compared with 0.28% for the matched comparison cohort.

CONCLUSIONS:

Approximately 17% of all PCa occurred in combination with another primary cancer (before or after PCa diagnosis). Detection bias probably explains part of this observation, but further investigations are required to assess possible underlying mechanisms. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society.     

A comparative analysis of cancer prevalence in cancer registry areas of France, Italy and Spain.

A comparative analysis of cancer prevalence in France, Spain and Italy is presented as part of the EUROPREVAL project. The three countries are culturally and sociologically relatively homogeneous compared with Europe as a whole. However, in all three countries, the cancer registries (CRs) providing the data for prevalence calculation cover only small fractions of the populations, and have been operating for relatively short periods. This leads to problems of representativity and to prevalence underestimates as surviving cases diagnosed before operation of the CR are not recorded. Partial prevalences obtained directly from CR data were therefore corrected using a completeness index obtained by modelling to provide estimates of the complete prevalence. For CRs operating for only 5 years, only approximately half the prevalence was observed. Thus, due to the rather recent start of most of southern European CRs, the role of correction is very important. The prevalence of all cancers was highest in Italy for women and in France for men, while lowest in Spain. Differences in the age structures of the populations were the major cause of these discrepancies and after age adjustment only the prevalence of stomach cancer remained highest in Italy, although differences in incidence also contributed to the prevalence differences. Survival varied little between the three countries and differences in incidence are more important determinants of prevalence. Prevalence of cancer in the elderly represents an increasing load for the community, particularly for France, Italy and Spain due to the ageing population in these countries. Elderly patients with cancer frequently suffer from problems of co-morbidity and disability factors, thus placing a burden on the local medical system where this proportion is high. Prevalent cases diagnosed 1-5 years before the prevalence date formed approximately one-third of the total prevalence, with higher proportions for melanoma, and prostate cancer in males and breast and colorectal cancer in females, and lower proportions for uterine cancer. This subset of the prevalent population consists of those probably on intensive follow-up, or being treated for cancer recurrence or sequelae to primary therapy.     

Differences in stage and therapy for breast cancer across Europe

We examined variations in stage, diagnostic workup and therapy for breast cancer across Europe. Seventeen cancer registries in six European countries contributed 4,480 cases diagnosed in 1990-91. The clinical records of these cases were examined, and the distribution of stage, diagnostic examinations and therapy were analyzed. Stage was earliest in the French registries, followed by those of Italy and Eindhoven (Netherlands). The proportion of stage I cancers was highest in the French areas with screening in place. Estonia, the English registries and Granada (Spain) had the most advanced stage at diagnosis. Use of liver ultrasonography varied from 84% (Italian registries) to 18% (Granada). Bone scan use varied from 81% (Italian registries) to 15% (Mersey, UK). The highest proportions treated by breast-conserving surgery were in the French (57%) and English registries (63%); the lowest were in Estonia (6%) and Granada (11%). The highest proportions of Halsted mastectomies were in Italy (19%) and Granada (8%). In all countries except England, 90% of operations included axillary lymphadenectomy. Medical treatment only was given to 8% of (mostly advanced) cases overall. Estonia (21%) and the English registries (14%) had the highest proportions of patients given medication only. Chemotherapy was given to low proportions of node-positive cases in the Italian (76%) and English (74%) areas; breast-conserving surgery for stage I tumors varied from 24% in Granada to 84% in England. These wide differences in breast cancer care across Europe in the early 1990s indicate a need for continual monitoring of past treatments to help ensure application of the most effective protocols.     

Contrasts in cancer prevalence in Connecticut,Iowa, and Utah

BACKGROUND: Cancer prevalence--the proportion of a population with cancer, including those recently diagnosed, those in treatment, and survivors--is an important indicator of future health care requirements. Only limited information on cancer prevalence is available for the United States. In particular, comparative interstate studies are not available. In this study, we estimate and analyze the prevalence of seven major cancers in Connecticut, lowa, and Utah using the tried and tested PREVAL method applied to National Cancer Institute registry data. METHODS: We analyzed data on 242,851 carcinomas of the stomach, colorectum, pancreas, breast, uterus (corpus), ovary, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), diagnosed in white Americans from 1973 through 1992. Observed prevalence was estimated by applying the PREVAL method to incidence and life status data from the cancer registries. Complete prevalence was estimated by applying correction factors obtained by modeling incidence and survival rates. RESULTS: The ratio of the highest to the lowest prevalence (as proportions) ranged from 1.69 for uterine carcinoma to 2.73 for stomach carcinoma, showing that marked differences in cancer prevalence exist within the United States. Utah had the lowest prevalence for each carcinoma. Connecticut and lowa had similar prevalence levels for carcinomas of the colorectum, pancreas, and ovary and for NHL. Breast carcinoma was the most prevalent, with 826 cases per 100,000 of population in Utah, 1518 per 100,000 in lowa, and 1619 per 100,000 in Connecticut. Cancer survival did not differ greatly among the three registry populations. The major determinants of prevalence differences were incidence and the population age distribution. CONCLUSIONS: PREVAL provides reliable estimates of the numbers of living people in a population who have had a cancer diagnosis. Prevalence depends on incidence and survival and on the age structure of population. All these factors have changed markedly in recent years and will continue to do so in the future. Cancer prevalence should be monitored over time to evaluate changes by area, sex, age, and cancer site. The prevalence figures presented are directly comparable with those from European cancer registries.     

Measuring cancer prevalence in Europe: the EUROPREVAL project.

Cancer prevalence is the proportion of individuals in a population who at some stage during their lifetime have been diagnosed with cancer, irrespective of the date of diagnosis. Cancer prevalence statistics have generally been provided by a limited number of well established cancer registries that have been in existence for several decades. The advent of systematic follow-up of life status of incident cases and the availability of new statistical methodologies, now makes it possible for registries established during the 1970s or 1980s to provide prevalence data. The main problems encountered in the estimation of prevalence are the inclusion of: (i) cases lost to follow-up; (ii) cases known only from their death certificate; (iii) cases diagnosed before the start of registration; and (iv) the treatment of multiple tumours and migrations. The main aim of this paper was to review these problems and discuss, through the experience gained with EUROPREVAL, how they can be overcome. A method is presented for the calculation of prevalence of all cancers combined in the populations covered by the 45 cancer registries participating in EUROPREVAL. Prevalence of cancer is estimated to be 2% on average, with the highest values (3%) in Sweden and the lowest in Eastern Europe, with a minimum of approximately 1% in Poland.     

Cancer prevalence in Central Europe: the EUROPREVAL Study.

BACKGROUND: Information on cancer prevalence is either absent or largely unavailable for central European countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland cover a population of 13 million inhabitants. Cancer registries in these countries supplied incidence and survival data for 465 000 cases of cancer. The prevalence of stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast, cervix uteri, corpus uteri and prostate cancer, as well as skin melanoma, Hodgkin's disease, leukaemia and all malignant neoplasms combined was estimated for the end of 1992. RESULTS: A large heterogeneity was observed within central European countries. For all cancers combined, estimates ranged from 730 per 100 000 in Poland (men) to 3350 per 100 000 in Germany (women). Overall cancer prevalence was the highest in Germany and Switzerland, and the lowest in Poland and Slovenia. In Slovakia, prevalence was higher than average for men and lower than average for women. This was observed for almost all ages. As shown by incidence data, breast cancer was the most frequent malignancy among women in all countries. Among men, prostate cancer was the leading malignancy in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, and lung cancer was the major cancer in Slovenia, Slovakia and Poland. The Netherlands had a high prevalence of both prostate and lung cancer. Time-related magnitude of prevalence within each country and the variability of such proportions across the countries has been estimated and cancer prevalence is given by time since diagnosis (1 year, 1-5 years, 5-10 years, >10 years) for each site. The weight of 1-year prevalence (248 per 100 000 among men and 253 per 100 000 among women) was <15% of total prevalence. Prevalent cases between 1 and 5 years since diagnosis represented between 22% and 34% of the total prevalence. Prevalent cases diagnosed from 5 to 10 years before (335 per 100 000 for men and 505 per 100 000 for women) represented between 17% and 23% of prevalent cancers. Finally, long-term cancer prevalence (diagnosed >10 years before), reflecting long-term survival, and number of people considered as cured from cancer were 490 per 100 000 for men and 1028 per 100 000 for women, with a range between 26% (The Netherlands, men) and 50% (Slovakia, women). CONCLUSION: It is clear from observing countries in Central Europe, that high cancer prevalence is associated with well-developed economies. This burden of cancer could be interpreted as a paradoxical effect of better treatments and thereby survival. It could also be taken as a sign for not being satisfied with the advances in treating patients diagnosed with cancer, and for supporting more primary prevention.     

Regional estimates of stomach cancer burden in Italy

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Stomach cancer still remains one of the most frequent tumors in Italy and Europe. The aim of this paper is to present estimates for stomach cancer mortality, incidence and prevalence over the period 1970-2010 for the Italian regions and for Italy as a whole. METHODS: Estimated figures for incidence, prevalence and mortality were obtained by using the MIAMOD method. Starting from the knowledge of mortality in the period 1970-1999 and of relative survival in the period of diagnosis 1978-1994, we derived incidence and prevalence estimates and projections up to the year 2010 by means of a statistical back-calculation approach. Survival at the regional and national levels was modelled on the basis of published survival data from the Italian cancer registries. RESULTS: Incidence and mortality trends for both sexes decrease by about 60% during the estimation period 1970-2010. Both indicators show a 2-fold male/female ratio all over the country, and a similar gender time trend. The incidence and mortality in the North and Center of the country are estimated to be higher and to decrease more steeply than those in the South, both for men and women. A total of around 13,000 incident cases, 57,000 prevalent cases, and 8,000 deaths are estimated to have occurred in Italy in 2005. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and mortality trends are estimated to decline during the entire period 1970-2010, with different slopes between northern-central and southern regions.The incidence and mortality are quite similar among Italian regions, showing that the risk of developing the disease diminishes and is becoming more homogeneous than in the past decades all over the country.     

How common is familial cancer?

BACKGROUND: Family history of a disease may point to its heritable or environmental etiology. It can be described by the proportion of the familial disease, i.e. same disease in two or more family members. A family history always needs to be specified as to the number of generations covered and their ages. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Proportions of site-specific familial cancers (familial proportions) were calculated using the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, the largest dataset of its kind in the world, with cancers from the Swedish Cancer Registry. Familial proportions refer to the offspring population up to age 72 years when their parents or siblings were diagnosed with a concordant (same) cancer. RESULTS: A total of 34 cancer sites and 205 638 cases were covered. Prostate cancer showed the highest familial proportion of 20.15%, followed by breast (13.58%) and colorectal (12.80%) cancers. Salivary gland cancers showed the lowest familial proportion of 0.15%, but bone, laryngeal, anal, connective tissue and other genital cancers also remained <1%. The familial proportion depended on the prevalence of the particular cancer and on its familial risk. CONCLUSIONS: The derived familial proportions can justifiably be used in statements 'X% of the patients had a family history of the cancer'.     

Cure of cancer for seven cancer sites in the Flemish Region

Cumulative relative survival curves for many cancers reach a plateau several years after diagnosis, indicating that the cancer survivor group has reached “statistical” cure. Parametric mixture cure model analysis on grouped relative survival curves provide an interesting way to determine the proportion of statistically cured cases and the mean survival time of the fatal cases in particular for population‐based cancer registries. Based on the relative survival data from the Belgian Cancer Registry, parametric cure models were applied to seven cancer sites (cervix, colon, corpus uteri, skin melanoma, pancreas, stomach and oesophagus), at the Flemish Regional level for the incidence period 1999–2011. Statistical cure was observed for the examined cancer sites except for oesophageal cancer. The estimated cured proportion ranged from 5.9% [5.7, 6.1] for pancreatic cancer to 80.8% [80.5, 81.2] for skin melanoma. Cure results were further stratified by gender or age group. Stratified cured proportions were higher for females compared to males in colon cancer, stomach cancer, pancreas cancer and skin melanoma, which can mainly be attributed to differences in stage and age distribution between both sexes. This study demonstrates the applicability of cure rate models for the selected cancer sites after 14 years of follow‐up and presents the first population‐based results on the cure of cancer in Belgium.     

Projections of cancer prevalence by phase of care: a potential tool for planning future health service needs

Purpose

The objective of this study is to describe a method for estimating the number of cancer survivors requiring different types of cancer care in the future.

Methods

Colon cancer data (1972–2007) from the New South Wales (NSW) Central Cancer Registry were used to estimate prevalence in 2008–2017, which was then divided into five phases of care (initial, post-treatment monitoring, treatment for recurrence and second colon cancer, long-term survivors and last year of life). Patterns of care study data were used to calculate the type and number of treatments required by patients in initial care.

Results

There were 17,375 patients living in NSW who had a past diagnosis of first primary colon cancer in 2007. Our statistical model suggests that by 2017, this number will have increased to 22,671. At least 2,430 patients are expected to require initial surgery for colon cancer in 2017, and of these, 753 will also require adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, an additional 538 cases will require therapy due to cancer recurrence (307) or a second primary colon cancer (231).

Conclusion

Our proposed method provides more complete estimates of future cancer care needs. With some modifications, this method can be used to estimate the future prevalence of many major cancer types in many other jurisdictions.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Our proposed method can be a useful tool for planning future cancer care with the goal of improving the cancer survivorship experience for survivors, their caregivers and their families.     

Potential for colorectal cancer prevention of sigmoidoscopy versus colonoscopy: population-based case control study.

We aimed to estimate the proportions of colorectal cancer cases that might be prevented by sigmoidoscopy compared with colonoscopy among women and men. In a population-based case control study conducted in Germany, 540 cases with a first diagnosis of primary colorectal cancer and 614 controls matched for age, sex, and county of residence were recruited. A detailed lifetime history of endoscopic examinations of the large bowel was obtained by standardized personal interviews, validated by medical records, and compared between cases and controls, paying particular attention to location of colorectal cancer and sex differences. Overall, 39%, 77%, and 64% of proximal, distal, and total colorectal cancer cases were estimated to be preventable by colonoscopy. The estimated proportion of total colorectal cancer cases preventable by sigmoidoscopy was 45% among both women and men, assuming that sigmoidoscopy reaches the junction of the descending and sigmoid colon only and findings of distal polyps are not followed by colonoscopy. Assuming that sigmoidoscopy reaches the splenic flexure and colonoscopy is done after detection of distal polyps, estimated proportions of total colorectal cancer preventable by sigmoidoscopy increase to 50% and 55% (73% and 91% of total colorectal cancer preventable by primary colonoscopy) among women and men, respectively. We conclude that colonoscopy provides strong protection against colorectal cancer among both women and men. The proportion of this protection achieved by sigmoidoscopy with follow-up colonoscopy in case of distal polyps may be larger than anticipated. Among men, this regimen may be almost as effective as colonoscopy, at least at previous performance levels of colonoscopy.     

Waiting times for radiotherapy: variation over time and between cancer networks in southeast England

The aim of this study was to investigate variations in the length of time that patients with cancer wait from diagnosis to treatment with radiotherapy. A total of 57,426 men and 71,018 women diagnosed with cancer between 1992 and 2001 and receiving radiotherapy within 6 months of diagnosis were identified from the Thames Cancer Registry database. In total, 12 sites were identified for which a substantial number or proportion of patients received radiotherapy: head and neck, oesophagus, colon, rectum, lung, nonmelanoma skin cancer, breast, uterus, prostate, bladder, brain and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Median waiting times from diagnosis to radiotherapy were calculated, together with the proportion of patients who received radiotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis, and analysed by year of diagnosis, cancer site, deprivation quintile, age at diagnosis, sex and cancer network of either residence or treatment. Logistic regression was used to adjust the proportion receiving treatment within 60 days for the effects of the other factors. There were significant differences in the proportions receiving radiotherapy within 60 days between different networks and different cancer sites, which remained after adjustment. Median waiting times varied from 42 to 65 days across networks of residence, with the adjusted proportion treated within 60 days ranging from 44 to 71%. There was no difference between male and female patients after adjustment for the other factors, particularly site. There was a highly significant trend over time: the median wait increased from 45 days in 1992 to 76 days in 2001, while the adjusted proportion being treated within 60 days declined by almost a half, from 64 to 35%, over the same period.