The completeness and timeliness of cancer registration and the implications for measuring cancer burden

BackgroundPopulation based cancer registration provides a critical role in disease surveillance in terms of incidence, survival, cancer cluster investigations and prevalence trends, and therefore high levels of completeness and timeliness are required. This study estimates completeness and variation between early and late registrations in the N. Ireland Cancer Registry (NICR) and assesses the implications for reporting cancer incidence and for registry-based research.MethodsTwo main approaches assessed completeness. For the period 2010–2012, incidence reported in the first year of data publication was compared to incidence reported in subsequent years until 2015. Demographic characteristics and survival of incident cases ascertained before the first publication year were compared to those ascertained in subsequent years. The flow method approach was used to estimate completeness annually after the incident year.ResultsOverall incidence for all cancers increased between the first year of data publication and subsequent years up to 2015, irrespective of year of diagnosis. Late registrations had poorer survival. The flow method approach estimated the completeness of case ascertainment of NICR data to be 96% complete at five years for all cancers combined.ConclusionThe estimated completeness levels for the NICR are comparable to other high quality cancer registries internationally. While data timeliness has little impact on incidence estimates, delays in registration may have implications for specific research studies into incidence and survival. This means that improvements in the timeliness of reporting should be a target for all registries but not at the expense of completeness.     

Multiple imputation to minimise bias from missing stage information in estimates of early cancer diagnosis in England: a population-based study

IntroductionMonitoring early diagnosis is a priority of cancer policy in England. Information on stage has not always been available for a large proportion of patients, however, which may bias temporal comparisons. We previously estimated that early-stage diagnosis of colorectal cancer rose from 32% to 44% during 2008–2013, using multiple imputation. Here we examine the underlying assumptions of multiple imputation for missing stage using the same dataset.MethodsIndividually-linked cancer registration, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), and audit data were examined. Six imputation models including different interaction terms, post-diagnosis treatment, and survival information were assessed, and comparisons drawn with the a priori optimal model. Models were further tested by setting stage values to missing for some patients under one plausible mechanism, then comparing actual and imputed stage distributions for these patients. Finally, a pattern-mixture sensitivity analysis was conducted.ResultsData from 196,511 colorectal patients were analysed, with 39.2% missing stage. Inclusion of survival time increased the accuracy of imputation: the odds ratio for change in early-stage diagnosis during 2008–2013 was 1.7 (95% CI: 1.6, 1.7) with survival to 1 year included, compared to 1.9 (95% CI 1.9–2.0) with no survival information. Imputation estimates of stage were accurate in one plausible simulation. Pattern-mixture analyses indicated our previous analysis conclusions would only change materially if stage were misclassified for 20% of the patients who had it categorised as late.InterpretationMultiple imputation models can substantially reduce bias from missing stage, but data on patient’s one-year survival should be included for highest accuracy.     

Exploration of the possible effect on survival of lead-time associated with implementation of cancer patient pathways among symptomatic first-time cancer patients in Denmark

BackgroundImplementation of standardised cancer patient pathways (CPPs) has provided faster diagnosis of cancer. Cancer survival has improved during the same time period. Concern has been raised that the faster diagnosis may have introduced lead-time bias by elongating the period from diagnosis to death.AimWe aimed to analyse the possible effect of lead time on survival due to expedited cancer diagnosis after the implementation of national CPPs among incident cancer patients diagnosed through Danish primary care.Material and methodsWe used actual observed differences in diagnostic intervals to estimate the lead-time effect. We used data from sub-cohorts from the Danish Cancer in Primary Care (CaP) cohort of first-time cancer patients: before and after CPP implementation. To calculate differences in absolute survival, we estimated the survival function after advancing the date of diagnosis in the before cohort to an earlier point in time and hereby adjusting for lead time for nine cancer types and all combined by using Kaplan-Meier analysis.ResultsAdvancing the date of diagnosis implied that the absolute one-year survival increased from 68.5% to 69.4%. This accounted for 13% of the observed differences in absolute one-year survival from before to after CPPs.ConclusionThe lead time caused by shorter diagnostic intervals after implementation of Cancer Patient Pathways seems to explain less than 15% of the observed changes in the one-year survival estimates for cancer patients in Denmark.     

Effects of the length of central cancer registry operations on identification of subsequent cancers and on survival estimates

BackgroundPopulation-based cancer survival analyses have traditionally been based on the first primary cancer. Recent studies have brought this practice into question, arguing that varying registry reference dates affect the ability to identify earlier cancers, resulting in selection bias. We used a theoretical approach to evaluate the extent to which the length of registry operations affects the classification of first versus subsequent cancers and consequently survival estimates.MethodsSequence number central was used to classify tumors from the New York State Cancer Registry, diagnosed 2001–2010, as either first primaries (value = 0 or 1) or subsequent primaries (≥2). A set of three sequence numbers, each based on an assumed reference year (1976, 1986 or 1996), was assigned to each tumor. Percent of subsequent cancers was evaluated by reference year, cancer site and age. 5-year relative survival estimates were compared under four different selection scenarios.ResultsThe percent of cancer cases classified as subsequent primaries was 15.3%, 14.3% and 11.2% for reference years 1976, 1986 and 1996, respectively; and varied by cancer site and age. When only the first primary was included, shorter registry operation time was associated with slightly lower 5-year survival estimates. When all primary cancers were included, survival estimates decreased, with the largest decreases seen for the earliest reference year.ConclusionsRegistry operation length affected the identification of subsequent cancers, but the overall effect of this misclassification on survival estimates was small. Survival estimates based on all primary cancers were slightly lower, but might be more comparable across registries.     

The validity of cancer information on death certificates in Norway and the impact of death certificate initiated cases on cancer incidence and survival

BackgroundDeath certificates are an important source of information for cancer registries. The aim of this study was to validate the cancer information on death certificates, and to investigate the effect of including death certificate initiated (DCI) cases in the Cancer Registry of Norway when estimating cancer incidence and survival.MethodsAll deaths in Norway in the period 2011–2015 with cancer mentioned on the death certificates were linked to the cancer registry. Notifications not registered from other sources were labelled death certificate notifications (DCNs), and considered as either cancer or not, based on available information in the registry or from trace-back to another source.ResultsFrom the total of 65 091 cancers mentioned on death certificates in the period 2011–2015, 58,425 (89.8%) were already in the registry. Of the remaining 6 666 notifications, 2 636 (2 129 with cancer as underlying cause) were not regarded to be new cancers, which constitutes 4.0% of all cancers mentioned on death certificates and 39.5% of the DCNs. Inclusion of the DCI cases increased the incidence of all cancers combined by 2.6%, with largest differences for cancers with poorer prognosis and for older age groups. Without validation, including the 2 129 disregarded death certificates would over-estimate the incidence by 1.3%. Including DCI cases decreased the five-year relative survival estimate for all cancer sites combined with 0.5% points.ConclusionIn this study, almost 40% of the DCNs were regarded not to be a new cancer case, indicating unreliability of death certificate information for cancers that are not already registered from other sources. The majority of the DCNs where, however, registered as new cases that would have been missed without death certificates. Both including and excluding the DCI cases will potentially bias the survival estimates, but in different directions. This biases were shown to be small in the Cancer Registry of Norway.     

Survival of cancer patients in urban and rural areas of Germany—A comparison

BackgroundCancer care services including cancer prevention activities are predominantly localised in central cities, potentially causing a heterogeneous geographic access to cancer care. The question of an association between residence in either urban or rural areas and cancer survival has been analysed in other parts of the world with inconsistent results. This study aims at a comparison of age-standardised 5-year survival of cancer patients resident in German urban and rural regions using data from 11 population-based cancer registries covering a population of 33 million people.Material and methodsPatients diagnosed with cancers of the most frequent and of some rare sites in 1997–2006 were included in the analyses. Places of residence were assigned to rural and urban areas according to administrative district types of settlement structure. Period analysis and district type specific population life tables were used to calculate overall age-standardised 5-year relative survival estimates for the period 2002–2006. Poisson regression models for excess mortality (relative survival) were used to test for statistical significance.ResultsThe 5-year relative survival estimates varied little among district types for most of the common sites with no consistent trend. Significant differences were found for female breast cancer patients and male malignant melanoma patients resident in city core regions with slightly better survival compared to all other district types, particularly for patients aged 65 years and older.ConclusionWith regard to residence in urban or rural areas, the results of our study indicate that there are no severe differences concerning quality and accessibility of oncological care in Germany among different district types of settlement.     

Breast and colorectal cancer recurrence-free survival estimates in the US: Modeling versus active data collection

BackgroundA modeling method was developed to estimate recurrence-free survival using cancer registry survival data. This study aims to validate the modeled recurrence-free survival against “gold-standard” estimates from data collected by the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) project.MethodsWe compared 5-year metastatic recurrence-free survival using modeling and empirical estimates from the PCOR project that collected disease-free status, tumor progression and recurrence for colorectal and female breast cancer cases diagnosed in 2011 in 5 U.S. state registries. To estimate empirical recurrence-free survival, we developed an algorithm that combined disease-free, recurrence, progression, and date information from NPCR-PCOR data. We applied the modeling method to relative survival for patients diagnosed with female breast and colorectal cancer in 2000–2015 in the SEER-18 areas.ResultsWhen grouping patients with stages I-III, the 5-year metastatic recurrence-free modeled and NPCR-PCOR estimates are very similar being respectively, 90.2 % and 88.6 % for female breast cancer, 74.6 % and 75.3 % for colon cancer, and 68.8 % and 68.5 % for rectum cancer. In general, the 5-year recurrence-free NPCR-PCOR and modeled estimates are still similar when controlling by stage. The modeled estimates, however, are not as accurate for recurrence-free survival in years 1–3 from diagnosis.ConclusionsThe alignment between NPCR-PCOR and modeled estimates supports their validity and provides robust population-based estimates of 5-year metastatic recurrence-free survival for female breast, colon, and rectum cancers. The modeling approach can in principle be extended to other cancer sites to provide provisional population-based estimates of 5-year recurrence free survival.     

Control of data quality for population-based cancer survival analysis

BackgroundPopulation-based cancer survival is an important measure of the overall effectiveness of cancer care in a population. Population-based cancer registries collect data that enable the estimation of cancer survival. To ensure accurate, consistent and comparable survival estimates, strict control of data quality is required before the survival analyses are carried out. In this paper, we present a basis for data quality control for cancer survival.MethodsWe propose three distinct phases for the quality control. Firstly, each individual variable within a given record is examined to identify departures from the study protocol; secondly, each record is checked and excluded if it is ineligible or logically incoherent for analysis; lastly, the distributions of key characteristics in the whole dataset are examined for their plausibility.ResultsData for patients diagnosed with bladder cancer in England between 1991 and 2010 are used as an example to aid the interpretation of the differences in data quality. The effect of different aspects of data quality on survival estimates is discussed.ConclusionsWe recommend that the results of data quality procedures should be reported together with the findings from survival analysis, to facilitate their interpretation.     

Relative survival analysis of gynecological cancers in an urban district of Shanghai during 2002–2013

ObjectiveAppraisal of cancer survival is essential for cancer control, but studies related to gynecological cancer are scarce. Using cancer registration data, we conducted an in-depth survival analysis of cervical, uterine corpus, and ovarian cancers in an urban district of Shanghai during 2002–2013.Materials and methodsThe follow-up data of gynecological cancer from the Changning District of Shanghai, China, were used to estimate the 1–5-year observed survival rate (OSR) and relative survival rate (RSR) by time periods and age groups during 2002–2013. Age-standardized relative survival rates estimated by the international cancer survival standards were calculated during 2002–2013 to describe the prognosis of cervical, uterine corpus, and ovarian cancers among women in the district.ResultsIn total, 1307 gynecological cancer cases were included in the survival analysis in the district during 2002–2013. Among gynecological cancers, the 5-year OSRs and RSRs of uterine corpus cancer were highest (5-year OSR 84.40%, 5-year RSR 87.67%), followed by those of cervical cancer (5-year OSR 73.58%, 5-year RSR 75.91%), and those of ovarian cancer (5-year OSR 53.89%, 5-year RSR 55.90%). After age adjustment, the 5-year relative survival rates of three gynecological cancers were 71.23%, 80.11%, and 43.27%, respectively.ConclusionThe 5-year relative survival rate did not show a systematic temporal trend in cervical cancer, uterine cancer, or ovarian cancer. The prognosis in elderly patients was not optimistic, and this needs a more advanced strategy for early diagnosis and treatment. The age structure of gynecological cancer patients in the district tended to be younger than the standardized age, which implies that more attention to the guidance and health education for the younger generation is needed.     

Probabilities of dying from cancer and other causes in French cancer patients based on an unbiased estimator of net survival: A study of five common cancers

BackgroundNet survival is the survival that would be observed if cancer were the only possible cause of death. Although it is an important epidemiological tool allowing temporal or geographical comparisons, it cannot inform on the “crude” probability of death of cancer patients; i.e., when taking into account other possible causes of deaths.MethodsIn this work, we provide estimates of the crude probabilities of death from cancer and from other causes as well as the probability of being alive up to ten years after cancer diagnosis according to the age and year of diagnosis. Based on a flexible excess hazard model providing unbiased estimates of net survival, our methodology avoids the pitfalls associated with the use of the cause of death. We used data from FRANCIM, the French network of cancer registries, and studied five common cancer sites: head and neck, breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancers.ResultsFor breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers, the impact of the other causes on the total probability of death increased with the age at diagnosis whereas it remained negligible for lung and head and neck cancers whatever the age. For breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, the more recently was the cancer diagnosed, the less was the probability of death from cancer.ConclusionThe crude probability of death is an intuitive concept that may prove particularly useful in choosing an appropriate treatment, or refining the indication of a screening strategy by allowing the clinician to estimate the proportion of cancer patients who will die specifically from cancer.     

Survival from five common cancers in Georgia, 2015–2019 (CONCORD)

BackgroundPopulation-based cancer survival is a key metric of the effectiveness of health systems in managing cancer. Data from population-based cancer registries are essential for producing reliable and robust cancer survival estimates. Georgia established a national population-based cancer registry on 1 January 2015. This is the first analysis of population-based cancer survival from Georgia.MethodsData were available from the national cancer registry for 16,359 adults who were diagnosed with a cancer of the stomach, colon, rectum, breast (women) or cervix during 2015–2019. We estimated age-specific and age-standardised net survival at one, two and three years after diagnosis for each cancer, by sex.ResultsThe data were of extremely high quality, with less than 2% of data excluded from each dataset. For the patients included in analyses, at least 80% of the tumours were microscopically verified.Age-standardised three-year survival from stomach cancer was 30.6%, similar in men and women. For colon cancer, three-year survival was 60.1%, with survival 4% higher for men than for women. Three-year survival from rectal cancer was similar for men and women, at 54.7%. For women diagnosed with breast cancer, three-year survival was 84.4%, but three-year survival from cervical cancer was only 67.2%.ConclusionEstablishment of a national cancer registry with obligatory cancer registration has enabled the first examination of population-based cancer survival in Georgia. Maintenance of the registry will facilitate continued surveillance of both cancer incidence and survival in the country.     

Partner status and survival after cancer: A competing risks analysis

ObjectiveThe survival benefits of having a partner for all cancers combined is well recognized, however its prognostic importance for individual cancer types, including competing mortality causes, is less clear. This study was undertaken to quantify the impact of partner status on survival due to cancer-specific and competing mortality causes.MethodsData were obtained from the population-based Queensland Cancer Registry on 176,050 incident cases of ten leading cancers diagnosed in Queensland (Australia) from 1996 to 2012. Flexible parametric competing-risks models were used to estimate cause-specific hazards and cumulative probabilities of death, adjusting for age, stage (breast, colorectal and melanoma only) and stratifying by sex.ResultsBoth unpartnered males and females had higher total cumulative probability of death than their partnered counterparts for each site. For example, the survival disadvantage for unpartnered males ranged from 3% to 30% with higher mortality burden from both the primary cancer and competing mortality causes. The cause-specific age-adjusted hazard ratios were also consistent with patients without a partner having increased mortality risk although the specific effect varied by site, sex and cause of death. For all combined sites, unpartnered males had a 46%, 18% and 44% higher risk of cancer-specific, other cancer and non-cancer mortality respectively with similar patterns for females. The higher mortality risk persisted after adjustment for stage.ConclusionsIt is important to better understand the mechanisms by which having a partner is beneficial following a cancer diagnosis, so that this can inform improvements in cancer management for all people with cancer.     

Neuroblastoma in Spain: Linking the national clinical database and epidemiological registries – A study by the Joint Action on Rare Cancers

PurposeLinkage between clinical databases and population-based cancer registries may serve to evaluate European Reference Networks’ (ERNs) activity, by monitoring the proportion of patients benefiting from these and their impact on survival at a population level. To test this, a study targeting neuroblastoma (Nb) was conducted in Spain by the European Joint Action on Rare Cancers.Material and methodsSubjects: Nb cases, incident 1999–2017, aged < 15 years. Linkage included: Spanish Neuroblastoma Clinical Database (NbCDB) (1217 cases); Spanish Registry of Childhood Tumours (RETI) (1514 cases); and 10 regional population-based registries (RPBCRs) which cover 33% of the childhood population (332 cases). Linkage was semiautomatic. We estimated completeness, incidence, contribution, deficit, and 5-year survival in the databases and specific subsets.ResultsNational completeness estimates for RETI and NbCDB were 91% and 72% respectively, using the Spanish RPBCRs on International Incidence of Childhood Cancer (https://iicc.iarc.fr/) as reference. RPBCRs’ specific contribution was 1.6%. Linkage required manual crossover in 54% of the semiautomatic matches. Five-year survival was 74% (0–14 years) and 90% (0–18 months).ConclusionsAll three databases were incomplete as regards Spain as a whole and should therefore be combined to achieve full childhood cancer registration. A unique personal patient identifier could facilitate such linkage. Most children have access to Nb clinical trials. Consolidated interconnections between the national registry and clinical registries (including ERNs and paediatric oncology clinical groups) should be established to evaluate outcomes.     

Diagnostic route is associated with care satisfaction independently of tumour stage: Evidence from linked English Cancer Patient Experience Survey and cancer registration data

BackgroundWhether diagnostic route (e.g. emergency presentation) is associated with cancer care experience independently of tumour stage is unknown.MethodsWe analysed data on 18 590 patients with breast, prostate, colon, lung, and rectal cancers who responded to the 2014 English Cancer Patient Experience Survey, linked to cancer registration data on diagnostic route and tumour stage at diagnosis. We estimated odds ratios (OR) of reporting a negative experience of overall cancer care by tumour stage and diagnostic route (crude and adjusted for patient characteristic and cancer site variables) and examined their interactions with cancer site.ResultsAfter adjustment, the likelihood of reporting a negative experience was highest for emergency presenters and lowest for screening-detected patients with breast, colon, and rectal cancers (OR versus two-week-wait 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24–1.83; 0.88, 95% CI 0.75–1.03, respectively). Patients with the most advanced stage were more likely to report a negative experience (OR stage IV versus I 1.37, 95% CI 1.15–1.62) with little confounding between stage and route, and no evidence for cancer-stage or cancer-route interactions.ConclusionsThough the extent of disease is strongly associated with ratings of overall cancer care, diagnostic route (particularly emergency presentation or screening detection) exerts important independent effects.     

Impact of comorbidity on survival by tumour location: Breast,colorectal and lung cancer (2000–2014)

BackgroundTo assess the impact of comorbidity, measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), on survival in breast, colorectal and lung cancer.MethodsWe identified 3455 breast cancer, 3336 colorectal cancer and 2654 lung cancer patients through the Hospital del Mar cancer registry. The prevalence of comorbidities according to the CCI was calculated. Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test were used to compare survival curves for each cancer location. Cox regression was used to calculate survival hazard ratios and 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality rate ratios adjusted by age, sex, CCI, place of first consultation, stage, treatment and period of diagnosis.ResultsThe overall unadjusted 5-year follow-up survival proportion was 82.6% for breast cancer, 55.7% for colorectal cancer, and 16.3% for lung cancer. Overall survival was associated with CCI ≥ 3 in breast cancer (HR: 2.33 95%CI: 1.76–3.08), colorectal cancer (HR: 1.39; 95%CI: 1.13–1.70) and lung cancer (HR: 1.22; 95%CI: 1.06–1.40). In breast cancer, the higher the CCI, the higher the adjusted mortality rate ratio and differences were greater in 5-year than in 1-year follow-up survival.ConclusionsComorbidity is a significant predictor of overall survival in cancer patients; however, it has a stronger impact on survival in breast cancer than in colorectal and lung cancer.     

Quantification of overdiagnosis in randomised trials of cancer screening: an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews

The degree of overdiagnosis in common cancer screening trials is uncertain due to inadequate design of trials, varying definition and methods used to estimate overdiagnosis. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the risk of overdiagnosis for the most widely implemented cancer screening programmes and assess the implications of design limitations and biases in cancer screening trials on the estimates of overdiagnosis by conducting an overview and re-analysis of systematic reviews of cancer screening. We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library from their inception dates to November 29, 2021. Eligible studies included systematic reviews of randomised trials comparing cancer screening interventions to no screening, which reported cancer incidence for both trial arms. We extracted data on study characteristics, cancer incidence and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. We included 19 trials described in 30 articles for review, reporting results for the following types of screening: mammography for breast cancer, chest X-ray or low-dose CT for lung cancer, alpha-foetoprotein and ultrasound for liver cancer, digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen, and transrectal ultrasound for prostate cancer, and CA-125 test and/or ultrasound for ovarian cancer. No trials on screening for melanoma were eligible. Only one trial (5%) had low risk in all bias domains, leading to a post-hoc meta-analysis, excluding trials with high risk of bias in critical domains, finding the extent of overdiagnosis ranged from 17% to 38% across cancer screening programmes. We conclude that there is a significant risk of overdiagnosis in the included randomised trials on cancer screening. We found that trials were generally not designed to estimate overdiagnosis and many trials had high risk of biases that may draw the estimates of overdiagnosis towards the null. In effect, the true extent of overdiagnosis due to cancer screening is likely underestimated.     

Hospital surgical volume and colorectal cancer survival in Norway: A nationwide cohort study

BackgroundStudies of hospital surgical volume and colorectal cancer survival are inconclusive. We investigated whether surgical volume was associated with survival of patients operated for colorectal cancer in Norway.MethodsUsing Cancer Registry of Norway data, we compared excess mortality from colorectal cancer by hospital surgical volume among 26,989 colon and 9779 rectal cancer patients diagnosed 2009–2020 and followed-up to 31.12.2021. Hospitals were divided into terciles according to their three-year average annual surgical volume; colon: low (< 22), middle (22–73), high (> 73); rectal: low (< 17), middle (17–38), high (> 38). We estimated excess hazard ratios (EHR) with flexible parametric models adjusted for age, year, stage, surgical urgency and surgery location (within/outside patient’s residential health trust).ResultsLow-volume hospitals had the highest proportion of late-stage or acutely operated colon cancer patients. Colon cancer patients operated at low- versus high-volume hospitals had significantly increased crude excess mortality (EHR = 1.30; 95 % CI = 1.14–1.48) but no difference after adjustment for age, year, and stage (EHR = 0.97; 0.85–1.11). High-volume hospitals had the highest proportion of late-stage rectal cancer patients and patients operated outside their residential area. Rectal cancer patients operated at low- versus high-volume hospitals did not have significantly different excess mortality before (EHR = 0.84; 0.64–1.10) or after (EHR = 1.03; 0.79–1.35) adjustment for age, year, stage, surgical urgency and surgery location. After accounting for case-mix, hospital surgical volume was not associated with excess mortality from colon (P = 0.40) or rectal cancer (P = 0.22).ConclusionLow hospital surgical volume was not associated with poorer colorectal cancer survival.     

Does exclusion of cancers registered only from death-certificate information diminish socio-demographic disparities in recorded survival?

BackgroundDeath Certificate Only (DCO) cancer cases are commonly excluded from survival analyses due to unknown survival time. This study examines whether socio-demographic factors are associated with DCO diagnosis, and the potential effects of excluding DCO cases on socio-demographic cancer survival disparities in NSW, Australia.MethodsNSW Cancer Registry data for cases diagnosed in 2000–2008 were used in this study. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of DCO registration by socio-demographic sub-group (socio-economic disadvantage, residential remoteness, country of birth, age at diagnosis). Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate the probability of death from cancer by socio-demographic subgroup when DCO cases were included and excluded from analyses.ResultsDCO cases consisted of 1.5% (n = 4336) of all cases (n = 299,651). DCO diagnosis was associated with living in socio-economically disadvantaged areas (most disadvantaged compared with least disadvantaged quintile: odds ratio OR 1.25, 95%CI 1.12–1.40), living in inner regional (OR 1.16, 95%CI 1.08–1.25) or remote areas (OR 1.48, 95%CI 1.01–2.19), having an unknown country of birth (OR 1.63, 95%CI 1.47–1.81) and older age. Including or excluding DCO cases had no significant impact on hazard ratios for cancer death by socio-economic disadvantage quintile or remoteness category, and only a minor impact on hazard ratios by age.ConclusionSocio-demographic factors were associated with DCO diagnosis in NSW. However, socio-demographic cancer survival disparities remained unchanged or varied only slightly irrespective of including/excluding DCO cases. Further research could examine the upper limits of DCO proportions that significantly alter estimated cancer survival differentials if DCOs are excluded.     

The cost of premature death from cancer attributable to alcohol: Productivity losses in Europe in 2018

BackgroundMore than 1.9 million people die from cancer each year in Europe. Alcohol use is a major modifiable risk factor for cancer and poses an economic burden on society. We estimated the cost of productivity lost due to premature death (under 65 years of age) from alcohol-attributable cancer in the European Union (EU) plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (UK) in 2018.MethodsWe estimated cancer deaths attributable to alcohol using a Levin-based population attributable fractions method and cancer deaths in 2018 from the Global Cancer Observatory. Lost productivity was estimated for all alcohol-attributable cancer deaths by sex, cancer site, and country. Productivity losses were valued using the human capital approach.ResultsAn estimated 23,300 cancer deaths among people aged less than 65 in the EU plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the UK in 2018 were attributable to alcohol (18,200 males, 5100 females). This equated to €4.58 billion in total productivity losses in the region and 0.027 % of the European Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The average cost per alcohol-attributable cancer death was €196,000. Productivity lost to alcohol-attributable cancer per capita was highest in Western Europe. Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Portugal had the highest rate of premature mortality from alcohol-attributable cancer and the highest productivity lost as a share of national GDP.ConclusionOur study provides estimates of lost productivity from alcohol-attributable cancer death in Europe. Cost-effective strategies to prevent alcohol-attributable cancer deaths could result in economic benefits for society and must be prioritised.