| 1. |
- Allemani, Claudia, et al.
(författare)
-
Breast cancer survival in the US and Europe: a CONCORD high-resolution study
- 2013
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0020-7136. ; 132:5, s. 1170-1181
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Breast cancer survival is reportedly higher in the US than in Europe. The first worldwide study (CONCORD) found wide international differences in age-standardized survival. The aim of this study is to explain these survival differences. Population-based data on stage at diagnosis, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow-up were collected for about 20,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer aged 15-99 years during 1996-98 in 7 US states and 12 European countries. Age-standardized net survival and the excess hazard of death up to 5 years after diagnosis were estimated by jurisdiction (registry, country, European region), age and stage with flexible parametric models. Breast cancers were generally less advanced in the US than in Europe. Stage also varied less between US states than between European jurisdictions. Early, node-negative tumors were more frequent in the US (39%) than in Europe (32%), while locally advanced tumors were twice as frequent in Europe (8%), and metastatic tumors of similar frequency (5-6%). Net survival in Northern, Western and Southern Europe (81-84%) was similar to that in the US (84%), but lower in Eastern Europe (69%). For the first 3 years after diagnosis the mean excess hazard was higher in Eastern Europe than elsewhere: the difference was most marked for women aged 70-99 years, and mainly confined to women with locally advanced or metastatic tumors. Differences in breast cancer survival between Europe and the US in the late 1990s were mainly explained by lower survival in Eastern Europe, where low healthcare expenditure may have constrained the quality of treatment.
|
|
| 2. |
- Atun, Rifat, et al.
(författare)
-
Sustainable care for children with cancer : a Lancet Oncology Commission
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045. ; 21:4, s. 185-224
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- We estimate that there will be 13·7 million new cases of childhood cancer globally between 2020 and 2050. At current levels of health system performance (including access and referral), 6·1 million (44·9%) of these children will be undiagnosed. Between 2020 and 2050, 11·1 million children will die from cancer if no additional investments are made to improve access to health-care services or childhood cancer treatment. Of this total, 9·3 million children (84·1%) will be in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. This burden could be vastly reduced with new funding to scale up cost-effective interventions. Simultaneous comprehensive scale-up of interventions could avert 6·2 million deaths in children with cancer in this period, more than half (56·1%) of the total number of deaths otherwise projected. Taking excess mortality risk into consideration, this reduction in the number of deaths is projected to produce a gain of 318 million life-years. In addition, the global lifetime productivity gains of US$2580 billion in 2020–50 would be four times greater than the cumulative treatment costs of $594 billion, producing a net benefit of $1986 billion on the global investment: a net return of $3 for every $1 invested. In sum, the burden of childhood cancer, which has been grossly underestimated in the past, can be effectively diminished to realise massive health and economic benefits and to avert millions of needless deaths.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lawler, Mark, et al.
(författare)
-
European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. Oncology. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 24:1, s. e11-e56
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.
|
|
| 4. |
- Montel, Lisa, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementing and monitoring the right to health in breast cancer : selection of indicators using a Delphi process
- 2023
-
Ingår i: International Journal for Equity in Health. - 1475-9276. ; 22
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Women with breast cancer have different chances of surviving their disease, depending on where they live. Variations in survival may stem from unequal access to prompt diagnosis, treatment and care. Implementation of the right to health may help remedy such inequalities. The right to health is enshrined in international human rights law, notably Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A human rights-based approach to health requires a robust, just and efficient health system, with access to adequate health services and medicines on a non-discriminatory basis. However, it may prove challenging for health policymakers and cancer management specialists to implement and monitor this right in national health systems. Method: This article presents the results of a Delphi study designed to select indicators of implementation of the right to health to inform breast cancer care and management. In a systematic process, 13 experts examined an initial list of 151 indicators. Results: After two rounds, 54 indicators were selected by consensus, three were rejected, three were added, and 97 remained open for debate. For breast cancer, right-to-health features selected as worth implementing and monitoring included the formal recognition of the right to health in breast cancer strategies; a population-based screening programme, prompt diagnosis, strong referral systems and limited waiting times; the provision of palliative, survivorship and end-of-life care; the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality (AAAQ) of breast cancer services and medicines; the provision of a system of accountability; and the collection of anonymised individual data to target patterns of discrimination. Conclusion: We propose a set of indicators as a guide for health policy experts seeking to design national cancer plans that are based on a human rights-based approach to health, and for cancer specialists aiming to implement principles of the right to health in their practice. The 54 indicators selected may be used in High-Income Countries, or member states of the OECD who also have signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to monitor progress towards implementation of the right to health for women with breast cancer.
|
|
| 5. |
- Walters, Sarah, et al.
(författare)
-
Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival?
- 2015
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 113:5, s. 848-860
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
