Choosing the net survival method for cancer survival estimation

BackgroundA new net survival method has been introduced by Pohar Perme et al. (2012 [4]) and recommended to substitute the relative survival methods in current use for evaluating population-based cancer survival.MethodsThe new method is based on the use of continuous follow-up time, and is unbiased only under non-informative censoring of the observed survival. However, the population-based cancer survival is often evaluated based on annually or monthly tabulated follow-up intervals. An empirical investigation based on data from the Finnish Cancer Registry was made into the practical importance of the censoring and the level of data tabulation. A systematic comparison was made against the earlier recommended Ederer II method of relative survival using the two currently available computer programs (Pohar Perme (2013) [10] and Dickman et al. (2013) [11]).ResultsWith exact or monthly tabulated data, the Pohar-Perme and the Ederer II methods give, on average, results that are at five years of follow-up less than 0.5% units and at 10 and 14 years 1–2% units apart from each other. The Pohar-Perme net survival estimator is prone to random variation and may result in biased estimates when exact follow-up times are not available or follow-up is incomplete. With annually tabulated follow-up times, estimates can deviate substantially from those based on more accurate observations, if the actuarial approach is not used.ConclusionAt 5 years, both the methods perform well. In longer follow-up, the Pohar-Perme estimates should be interpreted with caution using error margins. The actuarial approach should be preferred, if data are annually tabulated.     

Unbiased estimates of long‐term net survival of hematological malignancy patients detailed by major subtypes in France

Long‐term population‐based survival data detailed by cancer subtype are important to measure the overall outcomes of malignancy managements. We provide net survival estimates at 1, 3, 5 and 10‐year postdiagnosis on 37,549 hematological malignancy (HM) patients whose ages were >15 years, diagnosed between 1989 and 2004 and actively followed until 2008 by French population‐based cancer registries. These are, to our knowledge, the first unbiased estimates of 10‐year net survival in HMs detailed by subtypes. HMs were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases‐Oncology 3. Net survival was estimated with the unbiased Pohar‐Perme method. The results are reported by sex and age classes. The changes of these indicators by periods of diagnosis were tabulated and the trends of the net mortality rates over time since diagnosis graphed. In all, 5‐ and 10‐year age‐standardized net survivals after HMs varied widely from 81 and 76% for classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) to 18 and 14% for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Even in HMs with the most favorable prognoses, the net survival decreased between 5‐ and 10‐year postdiagnosis. Women had better prognoses than men and age at diagnosis was an unfavorable prognostic factor for most HMs. In patients <55 years old, the net mortality rate decreased to null values 5‐year postdiagnosis in AML and 10‐year postdiagnosis in CHL, precursor non‐HL, chronic myelogenous leukemia, diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma. The prognoses improved for various HMs over the study period. The obtained unbiased indicators are important to evaluate national cancer plans.     

Unbiased estimates of long‐term net survival of solid cancers in France

In cancer studies, net survival (observed if cancer was the only cause of death) is a useful indicator but survival estimation at 5 years is insufficient for planning healthcare needs. We estimated the net survivals at 5 and 10 years in a cohort of 387,961 patients who had solid tumors between 1989 and 2004 and were followed‐up until January 1, 2008. The cases were actively followed‐up. Net survival was estimated with the unbiased Pohar‐Perme method. The standardized net survival used the international cancer survival standard weights. In men, the standardized net survivals ranged from 92% at 5 years and 89% at 10 years (testis) to 6% at 5 years and 5% at 10 years (pancreas). In women, it ranged from 91% at 5 years and 88% at 10 years (thyroid) to 10% at 5 years and 7% at 10 years (pancreas). The most frequent cancers had the highest net survivals: 84% at 5 years and 71% at 10 years for prostate and 84% at 5 years and 74% at 10 years for breast cancer. Advanced age was associated with poorer prognosis. In most cancers, the net survivals at 5 and 10 years increased over periods of diagnosis. Net cancer survival is unaffected by mortalities due to other causes. It is the only indicator suitable for comparisons between countries or periods of diagnosis within a given country. The 10‐year net survival confirmed the persistent unfavorable role of age in prognosis and the general improvement of cancer management over the last decade.     

The EUROCARE-5 study on cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007: Database,quality checks and statistical analysis methods

BackgroundSince 25 years the EUROCARE study monitors the survival of cancer patients in Europe through centralised collection, quality check and statistical analysis of population-based cancer registries (CRs) data. The European population covered by the study increased remarkably in the latest round. The study design and statistical methods were also changed to improve timeliness and comparability of survival estimates.To interpret the EUROCARE-5 results on adult cancer patients better here we assess the impact of these changes on data quality and on survival comparisons.MethodsIn EUROCARE-5 the survival differences by area were studied applying the complete cohort approach to data on nearly nine million cancer patients diagnosed in 2000–2007 and followed up to 2008. Survival time trends were analysed applying the period approach to data on about 10 million cancer cases diagnosed from 1995 to 2007 and followed up to 2008. Differently from EUROCARE-4, multiple primary cancers were included and relative survival was estimated with the Ederer II method.ResultsEUROCARE-5 covered a population of 232 million resident persons, corresponding to 50% of the 29 participating countries. The population coverage increased particularly in Eastern Europe.Cases identified from death certificate only (DCO) were on average 2.9%, range 0–12%. Microscopically confirmed cases amounted to over 85% in most CRs. Compared to previous methods, including multiple cancers and using the Ederer II estimator reduced survival estimates by 0.4 and 0.3 absolute percentage points, on average.ConclusionsThe increased population size and registration coverage of the EUROCARE-5 study ensures more robust and comparable estimates across European countries. This enlargement did not impact on data quality, which was generally satisfactory. Estimates may be slightly inflated in countries with high or null DCO proportions, especially for poor prognosis cancers. The updated methods improved the comparability of survival estimates between recently and long-term established registries and reduced biases due to informative censoring.     

Cancer survival in China, 2003–2005: A population‐based study

Limited population‐based cancer registry data available in China until now has hampered efforts to inform cancer control policy. Following extensive efforts to improve the systematic cancer surveillance in this country, we report on the largest pooled analysis of cancer survival data in China to date. Of 21 population‐based cancer registries, data from 17 registries (n = 138,852 cancer records) were included in the final analysis. Cases were diagnosed in 2003–2005 and followed until the end of 2010. Age‐standardized relative survival was calculated using region‐specific life tables for all cancers combined and 26 individual cancers. Estimates were further stratified by sex and geographical area. The age‐standardized 5‐year relative survival for all cancers was 30.9% (95% confidence intervals : 30.6%‐31.2%). Female breast cancer had high survival (73.0%) followed by cancers of the colorectum (47.2%), stomach (27.4%), esophagus (20.9%), with lung and liver cancer having poor survival (16.1% and 10.1%), respectively. Survival for women was generally higher than for men. Survival for rural patients was about half that of their urban counterparts for all cancers combined (21.8% vs. 39.5%); the pattern was similar for individual major cancers except esophageal cancer. The poor population survival rates in China emphasize the urgent need for government policy changes and investment to improve health services. While the causes for the striking urban‐rural disparities observed are not fully understood, increasing access of health service in rural areas and providing basic health‐care to the disadvantaged populations will be essential for reducing this disparity in the future.     

Standard errors of non-standardised and age-standardised relative survival of cancer patients

Background:

Relative survival estimates cancer survival in the absence of other causes of death. Previous work has shown that standard errors of non-standardised relative survival may be substantially overestimated by the conventionally used method. However, evidence was restricted to non-standardised relative survival estimates using Hakulinen''s method. Here, we provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the accuracy of standard errors including age-standardised survival and estimation by the Ederer II method.

Methods:

Five- and ten-year non-standardised and age-standardised relative survival was estimated for patients diagnosed with 25 common forms of cancer in Finland in 1989–1993, using data from the nationwide Finnish Cancer Registry. Standard errors of mutually comparable non-standardised and age-standardised relative survival were computed by the conventionally used method and compared with bootstrap standard errors.

Results:

When using Hakulinen''s method, standard errors of non-standardised relative survival were overestimated by up to 28%. In contrast, standard errors of age-standardised relative survival were accurately estimated. When using the Ederer II method, deviations of the standard errors of non-standardised and age-standardised relative survival were generally small to negligible.

Conclusion:

In most cases, overestimations of standard errors are effectively overcome by age standardisation and by using Ederer II rather than Hakulinen''s method.     

Model‐based projections for deriving up‐to‐date cancer survival estimates: An international evaluation

Model‐based projections were shown to be useful for deriving most up‐to‐date population‐based cancer survival estimates. However, the performance of these projections, which can be derived by various approaches, has only been evaluated in very few cancer patient populations. Using incidence and follow‐up data for 22 common cancers from 9 long‐standing population‐based cancer registries from diverse parts of Europe, we compared the performance of model‐based period and cohort analysis for predicting 5‐year relative survival of patients diagnosed in 1996–2000 against standard survival analysis approaches (cohort, complete and period analysis). Overall, model‐based predictions provided a best estimate of the later observed actual survival in 135 of 198 occasions, compared to 25, 18 and 33 occasions for cohort, complete and period analysis, respectively. Projections based on cohort and period type modeling performed essentially equally well on average, and their performance was better for more common cancers, in registries with larger population bases, and for cancers subjected to continuous clinical progress and/or ongoing screening efforts. Projections from model‐based analysis may contribute to improved timeliness of monitoring of concurrent trends in population‐based cancer survival in cancer registries operating in different populations and socioeconomic environments. © 2009 UICC     

Patients with previous cancer should not be excluded in international comparative cancer survival studies

In international comparisons or time trend analyses of cancer survival, it is common practice to restrict analyses to patients with a first cancer, i.e., to exclude patients with previous cancer diagnoses. However, the proportion of cancer patients with known previous cancer depends on the time cancer registries have been running, which results in varying proportions of excluded patients across registries. If prognosis of patients with second cancers differs from prognosis of patients with first cancers, varying exclusions may bias survival comparisons. We empirically evaluate the dependence of proportions of patients recorded as having a first cancer on time since initiation of cancer registration and the impact of excluding patients with known previous cancer on cancer survival estimates using the data of the nationwide Finnish Cancer Registry. Among 20 common cancer sites investigated, the proportion of "first cancers" varied between 97.4 and 99.7% in 1953-1957, the first 5-years of cancer registration, and decreased continuously to levels between 83.9 and 92.7% in 1993-1997. Excluding patients with a previous cancer diagnosis had little impact on estimates of survival of cancer patients diagnosed in 1953-1957, but increased 5-year relative survival estimates among patients diagnosed in 1993-1997 for each of the 20 cancers. The extent of the increase varied by cancer site and age. The increase ranged up to 2.9% points for crude and up to 1.7% points for age adjusted 5-year relative survival. These results caution against exclusion of patients with previous cancer diagnosis in comparative analyses of cancer survival.     

A comparison of relative and cause‐specific survival by cancer site,age and time since diagnosis

Relative survival (RS) estimates are widely used by cancer registries, mainly because they do not rely on the well‐documented deficiencies of cause of death information. The aim of our study was to compare 5‐year cause‐specific survival (CSS) estimates and 5‐year RS estimates for different cancer sites by age and time since diagnosis, and discuss possible reasons for observed differences. Using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, we identified 200,008 patients diagnosed with cancer at one of the 48 sites included in this analysis during the period 1996–2005, and followed them up until the end of 2010. CSS estimates were calculated (i) considering cause of death to be the cancer that was originally diagnosed and (ii) considering the cause of death to be a cancer within the same organ system. For most cancer sites the difference between CSS and RS estimates was small (<5%). The greatest differences were seen for rarer cancers such as mediastinum and Kaposi sarcoma. Including deaths from the same organ system in the calculation of CSS further reduced the differences for many sites. For younger age groups and shorter time since diagnosis, RS and CSS estimates tended to be similar, whereas CSS estimates tended to be lower than RS estimates with longer time since diagnosis in the oldest age groups. When compared to RS estimates CSS estimates were reliable for most of the cancer sites included in our analysis. There are, however, some exceptions where CSS estimates may not be recommended, including for rarer cancers and for patients aged 85 and above.     

Reduction of population-based cancer survival estimates by trace back of death certificate notifications: an empirical illustration

BackgroundSurvival studies using data from population-based cancer registries allow assessing effectiveness of cancer care on a population level. However, population-based cancer registries differ in the proportion of cases first notified by death certificate, as well as in the efforts to trace back such death certificate notifications (DCN). We aimed to assess the impact of such trace back on population-based cancer survival estimates.Materials and methodsIn this study from the population-based Saarland Cancer Registry (Germany) we investigated the survival experience of successfully traced back DCN cases from 1994 to 2003. Five-year relative survival of patients with DCN cancers and the effect of trace back on population-based 5-year relative survival estimates were analysed by age and tumour site.ResultsTwelve percent of all cancers were DCN and such cases occurred most often amongst sites with poor prognosis and amongst elderly patients. Approximately half of DCN cases could be successfully traced back. Five-year relative survival of patients with DCN cancers with trace back was 2%. The inclusion of DCN cancers with additional registrations reduced the 5-year relative survival estimate for all cancers combined by 4% points. Reductions were stronger for older patients and highly fatal cancers.ConclusionsTrace back results in increased inclusion of patients with very poor prognosis. Varying extent of trace back across registries may compromise comparability of cancer survival estimates and should be taken into account in comparative cancer survival studies.     

Influence of HPV type on prognosis in patients diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer

While much is known about the influence of HPV type on the progression of pre‐invasive cervical lesions, the impact of HPV type on cervical cancer prognosis is less evidenced. Thus, we assessed the impact of HPV type on the survival of women diagnosed with cervical cancer. A total of 370 cases of cervical cancer were assessed. Univariate analysis is presented using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and log‐rank statistics and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were generated using age group, socio‐economic deprivation, FIGO stage, differentiation and HPV type. HPV grouping was considered in a number of ways with particular reference to the presence or absence of HPV 16 and/or 18. In the univariate analysis, FIGO, age at diagnosis and treatment were associated with poorer survival (p < 0.0001) as was absence of HPV 16 and/or 18 (p = 0.0460). The 25% mortality time in the non‐HPV 16/18 vs. HPV16/18 positive group was 615 days and 1,307 days respectively. An unadjusted Cox PH model based HPV16/18 vs. no HPV 16/18 resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.669 (0.450, 0.995). Adjusting for deprivation, FIGO and age group resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.609 (0.395, 0.941) p = 0.025. These data indicate that cancers associated with HPV 16 and/or 18 do not confer worse survival compared to cancers associated with other types, and may indicate improved survival. Consequently, although HPV vaccine is likely to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer it may not indirectly improve cervical cancer survival by reducing the burden of those cancers caused by HPV16/18.     

Recent cancer survival in Germany: An analysis of common and less common cancers

The monitoring of cancer survival by population‐based cancer registries is a prerequisite to evaluate the current quality of cancer care. Our study provides 1‐, 5‐ and 10‐year relative survival as well as 5‐year relative survival conditional on 1‐year survival estimates and recent survival trends for Germany using data from 11 population‐based cancer registries, covering around one‐third of the German population. Period analysis was used to estimate relative survival for 24 common and 11 less common cancer sites for the period 2007–2010. The German and the United States survival estimates were compared using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results 13 database. Trends in cancer survival in Germany between 2002–2004 and 2008–2010 were described. Five‐year relative survival increased in Germany from 2002–2004 to 2008–2010 for most cancer sites. Among the 24 most common cancers, largest improvements were seen for multiple myeloma (8.0% units), non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (6.2% units), prostate cancer (5.2% units) and colorectal cancer (4.6% units). In 2007–2010, the survival disadvantage in Germany compared to the United States was largest for cancers of the mouth/pharynx (?11.0% units), thyroid (?6.8% units) and prostate (?7.5% units). Although survival estimates were much lower for elderly patients in both countries, differences in age patterns were observed for some cancer sites. The reported improvements in cancer survival might reflect advances in the quality of cancer care on the population level as well as increased use of screening in Germany. The survival differences across countries and the survival disadvantage in the elderly require further investigation.     

Stage IV breast cancer: a population‐based study about prognostic factors according to HER2 and HR status

We aim to describe trends in net survival (NS) and to assess the prognostic factors among women with de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) according to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and hormone receptor (HR) status. Data on women suffering from de novo MBC and diagnosed from 1998 to 2009 were provided by the Côte‐d'Or breast cancer registry. NS was described using the Pohar Perme estimator and prognostic factors were investigated in a generalised linear model. We identified 232 patients (mean age = 64.7). Median NS was 29.2 months, 1‐ and 5‐year NS were 76% and 26% respectively. The survival trend in patients with HER2‐positive tumours who did not receive trastuzumab was similar to that in women with triple‐negative tumours. A higher relative excess risk of death by cancer was observed for high‐grade tumours [RER, relative excess rates = 1.76 (95% CI, confidence intervals: 1.17–2.62) for Scarff Bloom Richardson grade 3 vs. 1 + 2], while a lower risk was observed for luminal tumours [RER = 0.49 (95% CI: 0.27–0.89)] and HER2‐positive tumours treated with trastuzumab [RER = 0.28 (95% CI: 0.14–0.59)], both compared with triple‐negative tumours. Surgery of the primary tumour was associated with better survival [RER = 0.43 (95% CI: 0.28–0.68)]. With half of the women dead before 29 months, stage IV breast cancer still has a bleak outlook. Progress should continue with new target therapies for both HR and HER2 receptors.     

Survival of cancer patients diagnosed between 1993 and 1996: a collaborative study of population-based cancer registries in Japan

BACKGROUND: Survival of cancer patients has been measured only in some limited areas in Japan until recently. The purpose of the present study was to collect data of fairly high quality on the population-based cancer registries and to estimate relative 5-year survival of cancer patients in Japan. METHODS: We requested 11 population-based cancer registries within the research group to submit individual data of the patients diagnosed from 1993 to 1996, together with the prognosis after 5 years, to the collaborative study secretariat. Ten population-based cancer registries (Miyagi, Yamagata, Niigata, Chiba, Kanagawa, Fukui, Aichi, Osaka, Tottori and Nagasaki) then accepted data submission (373,000 data). Among 10 registries, only 7 registries met the required standards for the quality of registration data and prognosis investigation. The relative 5-year survival calculated by pooling 279,000 data from seven registries was taken as the national estimate of that of cancer patients in Japan. RESULTS: The relative 5-year survival was 53.6% for all cancers (males: 49.2%, females: 59.4%); the survivals of stomach, large bowel, prostate and kidney cancer patients were from 62 to 68%; those of breast, uterus, larynx, skin, testis, bladder and thyroid cancer patients were from 74 to 92%; those of liver, gall bladder and bile duct, pancreas and lung cancer patients ranged from 6 to 23%. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the data from seven population-based cancer registries in Japan, we calculated the relative 5-year survival of cancer patients diagnosed from 1993 to 1996 for the first time.     

Cancer statistics in China, 2015

With increasing incidence and mortality, cancer is the leading cause of death in China and is a major public health problem. Because of China's massive population (1.37 billion), previous national incidence and mortality estimates have been limited to small samples of the population using data from the 1990s or based on a specific year. With high‐quality data from an additional number of population‐based registries now available through the National Central Cancer Registry of China, the authors analyzed data from 72 local, population‐based cancer registries (2009‐2011), representing 6.5% of the population, to estimate the number of new cases and cancer deaths for 2015. Data from 22 registries were used for trend analyses (2000‐2011). The results indicated that an estimated 4292,000 new cancer cases and 2814,000 cancer deaths would occur in China in 2015, with lung cancer being the most common incident cancer and the leading cause of cancer death. Stomach, esophageal, and liver cancers were also commonly diagnosed and were identified as leading causes of cancer death. Residents of rural areas had significantly higher age‐standardized (Segi population) incidence and mortality rates for all cancers combined than urban residents (213.6 per 100,000 vs 191.5 per 100,000 for incidence; 149.0 per 100,000 vs 109.5 per 100,000 for mortality, respectively). For all cancers combined, the incidence rates were stable during 2000 through 2011 for males (+0.2% per year; P = .1), whereas they increased significantly (+2.2% per year; P < .05) among females. In contrast, the mortality rates since 2006 have decreased significantly for both males (?1.4% per year; P < .05) and females (?1.1% per year; P < .05). Many of the estimated cancer cases and deaths can be prevented through reducing the prevalence of risk factors, while increasing the effectiveness of clinical care delivery, particularly for those living in rural areas and in disadvantaged populations. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:115–132. © 2016 American Cancer Society.     

Incidence and survival of soft tissue sarcoma in England between 2013 and 2017, an analysis from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service

There is a paucity of population-based data detailing the incidence and survival of patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS), in part due to the heterogeneity of disease and changes to classification. Here, the incidence and survival of all STS subtypes registered in England between 2013 and 2017 were analysed using cancer registry data held by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Age-standardised incidence rates were calculated per 1 000 000 using the 2013 European Standard Population. Net survival was computed using Brenner's alternative method, with the Ederer II estimator. Age-specific overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier. The influence of age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation and diagnostic routes on survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards modelling. In total, 19 717 patients were diagnosed with STS, an average of 3943 patients per year and representing approximately 0.8% of malignancies. The most common histological diagnoses were Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST), leiomyosarcoma and undifferentiated sarcoma, accounting for 20.2%, 13.3% and 12.7% of all sarcomas, respectively. Five-year net survival for all malignant STS was 65.0%; and was lowest for patients with vascular tumours at 39%. Patients from most deprived cohorts had 23% greater chance of dying within 5 years than patients in least deprived areas. This population-based study has allowed us for the first time to define the incidence and survival rates of prevalent STS subtypes in England such as GIST, liposarcoma and leiomyosarcoma, as well as rare entities and groups with inferior outcome. This data is invaluable for service provision, benchmarking and addressing inequality.     

上海市人群2002-2006年肝癌生存率分析

背景与目的：我国是肝癌高发地区。上海市最新监测数据显示,肝癌发病率居恶性肿瘤发病前列,疾病负担仍很大。该研究旨在分析上海地区肝癌患者生存率情况,为肝癌的防治提供基础数据。方法：根据上海市肿瘤登记处收集的2002—2006年肝癌登记和生存随访报告资料,采用寿命表法和Ederer Ⅱ法对肝癌患者的观察生存率(observed survival,OS)和相对生存率(relative survival,RS)及其相关人口学和疾病状况特征资料进行分析。结果：纳入分析的上海市2002—2006年诊断的肝癌病例20702例,1~5年OS分别为32.03%、21.63%、16.51%、13.66%和11.72%,1~5年RS分别为34.21%、23.93%、19.18%、16.84%和15.45%。男性OS较女性OS高,0~34岁年龄段患者OS高于其他年龄组,肝细胞癌的OS高于其他类型,Ⅰ期患者的OS明显高于Ⅲ期和Ⅳ期,市区和郊区居住肝癌患者生存情况差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)。过去30多年来,上海市肝癌患者5年OS和RS改善明显。结论：上海市肝癌患者的生存水平上升明显,但与其他常见恶性肿瘤相比,生存率仍较低,因此,进一步加强危险因素和高危人群的控制和干预是今后肝癌防治工作的重点。     

Prediagnostic body size and breast cancer survival in the E3N cohort study

Obesity has been associated with poor breast cancer prognosis, however most studies have focused on body mass index (BMI) and few have considered the distribution of adipose tissue. We investigated associations between prediagnostic adiposity and breast cancer survival, considering BMI, waist and hip circumferences (WC and HC), and waist‐to‐hip ratio (WHR). Analyses included 3,006 women from the French E3N prospective cohort study diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer between 1995 and 2008. We investigated overall, breast cancer‐specific, and disease‐free survival, overall and according to stage, menopausal and hormonal status and year of diagnosis, using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for tumor characteristics and lifestyle risk factors. Women with a prediagnostic HC > 100 cm were at increased risk of death from all causes (hazard ratio (HR)_{>100vs < 95 cm} = 1.38, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.02–1.86, P_trend = 0.02) and from breast cancer (HR_{>100vs < 95 cm} = 1.50, CI = 1.03–2.17, P_trend = 0.03), and of second invasive cancer event (HR_{>100vs < 95 cm} = 1.36, CI = 1.11–1.67, P_trend = 0.002), compared to those with HC <95 cm. Associations were stronger after adjustment for BMI. BMI, WC and WHR were not associated with survival after breast cancer. Our study underlines the importance of going beyond BMI when studying the association between adiposity and breast cancer survival. Further studies should be conducted to confirm our results on hip circumference.     

Long‐term survival and conditional survival of cancer patients in Japan using population‐based cancer registry data

Although we usually report 5‐year cancer survival using population‐based cancer registry data, nowadays many cancer patients survive longer and need to be followed‐up for more than 5 years. Long‐term cancer survival figures are scarce in Japan. Here we report 10‐year cancer survival and conditional survival using an established statistical approach. We received data on 1 387 489 cancer cases from six prefectural population‐based cancer registries in Japan, diagnosed between 1993 and 2009 and followed‐up for at least 5 years. We estimated the 10‐year relative survival of patients who were followed‐up between 2002 and 2006 using period analysis. Using this 10‐year survival, we also calculated the conditional 5‐year survival for cancer survivors who lived for some years after diagnosis. We reported 10‐year survival and conditional survival of 23 types of cancer for 15–99‐year‐old patients and four types of cancer for children (0–14 years old) and adolescent and young adults (15–29 years old) patients by sex. Variation in 10‐year cancer survival by site was wide, from 5% for pancreatic cancer to 95% for female thyroid cancer. Approximately 70–80% of children and adolescent and young adult cancer patients survived for more than 10 years. Conditional 5‐year survival for most cancer sites increased according to years, whereas those for liver cancer and multiple myeloma did not increase. We reported 10‐year cancer survival and conditional survival using population‐based cancer registries in Japan. It is important for patients and clinicians to report these relevant figures using population‐based data.     

Projecting SEER cancer survival rates to the US: an ecological regression approach

Objectives: Cancer survival information is available only in areas covered by cancer registration. The objective of this study is to project cancer survival for the entire US as well as states from survival data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program. Methods: Five-year breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer relative survival rates from SEER are regressed on socioeconomic, demographic, and health variables at the county level. These models are first validated by comparing the observed rates with projected rates for counties not used in the estimation process. Results: Education was the best indicator of longer cancer survival. Other important predictors of the geographical variability of survival varied by cancer site. Better survival was predicted for breast and prostate than for colorectal cancer. Conclusions: Data from cancer registries can be used in ecological models to provide national and state estimates of patients' survival rates. These estimates are useful in targeting areas in which to promote earlier diagnosis or improved access to care, and may also aid in monitoring the quality of survival data collected by individual cancer registries.