Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19956155›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2009

What if cancer survival in Britain were the same as in Europe: how many deaths are avoidable?

M Abdel-Rahman, D Stockton, B Rachet, T Hakulinen, M P Coleman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic value of symptoms of oesophagogastric cancers in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Delays in referral from primary care worsen survival for patients with colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  19. Microcytosis as a risk marker of cancer in primary care: a cohort study using electronic patient records.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article
  20. Association between use of urgent suspected cancer referral and mortality and stage at diagnosis: a 5-year national cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Article

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

M Abdel-RahmanCancer Research UK Cancer Survival Group, Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, UK.
D Stockton
B Rachet
T Hakulinen
M P Coleman
Cancer Research UK · GBFinnish Cancer Registry · FILondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBPublic Health Scotland · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 11700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate the number of deaths among cancer patients diagnosed in Great Britain that would be avoidable within 5 years of diagnosis if the mean (or highest) survival in Europe for patients diagnosed during 1985-1989, 1990-1994 and 1995-1999 were achieved.

designFive-year relative survival for cancers in Great Britain compared with that from other countries in the EUROCARE-2, -3 and -4 studies. Calculation of excess deaths (those more than expected from mortality in the general population) that would be avoidable among cancer patients in Britain if relative survival were the same as in Europe.

settingGreat Britain (England, Wales, Scotland) and 13 other European countries. SUBJECTS: 2.8 million adults diagnosed in Britain with 1 of 39 cancers during 1985-1989 (followed up to 1994), 1990-1994 (followed up to 1999) and 1995-1999 (followed up to 2003).

main outcome measureAnnual number of avoidable deaths within 5 years of diagnosis. Percentage of the excess (cancer-related) deaths among cancer patients that would be avoidable.

resultsCompared with the mean European 5-year relative survival, the largest numbers of avoidable deaths for patients diagnosed during 1985-1989 were for cancers of the breast (about 18% of the excess mortality from this cancer, 7541 deaths), prostate (14%, 4285), colon (9%, 4090), stomach (8%, 3483) and lung (2%, 3548). For 1990-1994, the largest numbers of avoidable deaths were for cancers of the prostate (20%, 7335), breast (15%, 6165), colon (9%, 4376), stomach (9%, 3672), lung (2%, 3735) and kidney (22%, 2644). For 1995-1999, most of the avoidable deaths were for cancers of the prostate (17%, 5758), breast (15%, 5475), lung (3%, 4923), colon (10%, 4295), stomach (9%, 3137) and kidney (21%, 2686).Overall, some 6600-7500 premature deaths would have been avoided each year among cancer patients diagnosed in Britain during 1985-1999 if the mean survival in Europe had been achieved. This represents 6-7% of cancer-related mortality. Compared with the highest European survival, avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients fell from about 12 800 deaths a year (12.2% of cancer-related mortality) to about 11 400 deaths a year (10.6%) over the same period.A large component of the avoidable mortality is due to prostate cancer: excluding this cancer from comparison with the European mean survival reduces the annual number of avoidable deaths by 1000-1500, and the percentage of excess mortality by up to 1%. Compared with the highest survival, the annual number of avoidable deaths would be 1500-2000 fewer, and 1-2% lower as a percentage of excess mortality, but the overall trend in avoidable premature mortality among cancer patients would be similar, falling from 11.4% (1985-1989) to 10.3% (1990-1994) and 9.7% for those diagnosed during 1995-1999.For several cancers, survival in Britain was slightly higher than the mean survival in Europe; this represented some 110-180 premature deaths avoided each year during the period 1985-2003.

conclusionsAvoidable premature mortality among cancer patients diagnosed in Britain during 1985-1999 has represented 6-7% of cancer-related mortality compared with the mean survival in Europe. Compared with the highest levels of survival in Europe, the reduction from 12.2% to 10.6% of cancer-related mortality reflects small but steady progress over the period 1985-2003.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsTime FactorsUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID19956155
PMCPMC2790713
OpenAlexW2153360645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.