Life expectancy and cancer survival in the EUROCARE-3 cancer registry areas.

BACKGROUND: Mortality information is essential for estimating relative cancer survival (that excludes deaths from other causes). However, sufficiently detailed mortality data are not available for all areas covered by the cancer registries (CRs) participating in the EUROCARE-3 study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mathematical methods were used to construct complete local mortality data (life tables) for each year of age (0-99), for each year (1978-2000) and by sex, from the incomplete life tables provided by CRs, presenting the results as life expectancy at birth (LE). Socio-economic data were obtained from the United Nations (UN) and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). RESULTS: The time and regional trends in LE provided by our estimates are closely similar to those published by the UN at the country level. According to UN data, LE (men plus women) varied from 70 years in Estonia to almost 79 years in Sweden in the period 1995-1999. LE increased markedly over the 20-year study period in most countries except Estonia and Denmark. LE correlated directly with GDP, national expenditure on health and relative survival for all cancers combined. We found that within-country LE variation was large in some countries (particularly the UK). Sweden, Iceland, Switzerland, and parts of Spain and Italy had high LE; eastern European countries had low LE. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed area-specific life tables are essential for reliable estimation of relative cancer survival and its comparison across populations, since LE varies markedly across Europe. Where not available, life tables can be constructed to the required level of detail using mathematical approaches.

European health systems and cancer care.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the survival of all incident cases collected by population-based cancer registries make it possible to evaluate the overall performance of diagnostic and therapeutic actions on cancer in those populations. EUROCARE-3 is the third round of the EUROCARE project, the largest cancer registry population based collaborative study on survival in European cancer patients. The EUROCARE-3 study analysed the survival of cancer patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 and followed-up to 1999. Sixty-seven cancer registries of 22 European countries characterised by differing health systems participated in the study. This paper includes essays providing brief overviews of the state and evolution of the health systems of the considered countries and comments on the relation between cancer survival in Europe and some European macro-economic and health system indicators, in the 1990s. OVERVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN HEALTH SYSTEMS: The European health systems underwent a great deal of reorganisation in the last decade; a general tendency being to facilitate expanding involvement of the private sector in health care, a process which occurred mainly in the eastern countries (i.e. the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). In contrast, organisational changes in the northern European countries (i.e. Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden) tended to confirm the established public sector systems. Other countries, including the UK and some southern European countries (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Malta and Italy) have reduced the public role while the systems remain basically public, at least at present. Our findings clearly suggest that cancer survival (all cancer combined) is related to macro-economic variables such as the gross domestic product (GDP), the total national (public and private) expenditure on health (TNEH) and the total public expenditure on health (TPEH). We found, however, that survival is related to wealth (GDP), but only up to a certain level, after which survival continues to be related to the level of health investment (both TNEH and TPEH). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the TNEH increased during the 1990s in all EUROCARE-3 countries, while the ratio of TPEH to TNEH reduced in all countries except Portugal. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survival depends on the widespread application of effective diagnosis and treatment modalities, but our enquiry suggests that the availability of these depends on macro-economic determinants, including health and public health investment. Analysis of the relationship between health system organisation and cancer outcome is complicated and requires more information than is at present available. To describe cancer and cancer management in Europe, the European Cancer Health Indicator Project (EUROCHIP) has proposed a list of indicators that have to be adopted to evaluate the effects on outcome of proposed health system modifications.

Cancer prevalence in Northern Europe: the EUROPREVAL study.

BACKGROUND: Information on cancer prevalence is of importance for health planning and resource allocation, but is not always available. In order to obtain such data in a comparable way a systematic evaluation of cancer prevalence in Europe was undertaken within the EUROPREVAL project. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Standardised data were collected from 38 population-based registries on almost 3 million cancer patients diagnosed between 1970 and 1992. The prevalence of 11 specific cancer types was estimated at the index date of 31 December 1992. This study deals with the northern countries Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland and Sweden. RESULTS: There were large differences between these countries, Sweden having the highest prevalence rate of 3050 per 100 000 and Estonia the lowest, 1339 per 100 000. This difference is mainly due to a high proportion of cancers with favourable prognosis such as breast cancer, prostate cancer and melanoma, better survival and longer life expectancy in Sweden, whereas Estonia has a higher proportion of stomach and lung cancer with poor prognosis, worse survival and much shorter life expectancy, especially for males. For most tumour types, the Nordic countries did better than Estonia. There are indications that cancer patients in Estonia, as well as in Denmark, have a more advanced stage at diagnosis and that the Estonian health-care system is less efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Despite many similarities and a common historical background, the northern countries in Europe that participated in the EUROPREVAL study display quite different cancer patterns and prevalence. Reasons for these variations are discussed.

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.

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 European registry areas.

BACKGROUND: Information on cancer prevalence is of major importance for health planning and resource allocation. However, systematic information on cancer prevalence is largely unavailable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight population-based cancer registries from 17 European countries, participating in EUROPREVAL, provided data on almost 3 million cancer patients diagnosed from 1970 to 1992. Standardised data collection and validation procedures were used and the whole data set was analysed using proven methodology. The prevalence of stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast, cervix uteri, corpus uteri and prostate cancer, as well as of melanoma of skin, Hodgkin's disease, leukaemia and all malignant neoplasms combined, were estimated for the end of 1992. RESULTS: There were large differences between countries in the prevalence of all cancers combined; estimates ranged from 1170 per 100000 in the Polish cancer registration areas to 3050 per 100000 in southern Sweden. For most cancers, the Swedish, Swiss, German and Italian areas had high prevalence, and the Polish, Estonian, Slovakian and Slovenian areas had low prevalence. Of the total prevalent cases, 61% were women and 57% were 65 years of age or older. Cases diagnosed within 2 years of the reference date formed 22% of all prevalent cases. Breast cancer accounted for 34% of all prevalent cancers in females and colorectal cancer for 15% in males. Prevalence tended to be high where cancer incidence was high, but the prevalence was highest in countries where survival was also high. Prevalence was low where general mortality was high (correlation between general mortality and the prevalence of all cancers = -0.64) and high where gross domestic product was high (correlation = +0.79). Thus, the richer areas of Europe had higher prevalence, suggesting that prevalence will increase with economic development. CONCLUSIONS: EUROPREVAL is the largest project on prevalence conducted to date. It has provided complete and accurate estimates of cancer prevalence in Europe, constituting essential information for cancer management. The expected increases in prevalence with economic development will require more resources; allocation to primary prevention should therefore be prioritised.