ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013
Management of colorectal cancer explains differences in 1-year relative survival between France and England for patients diagnosed 1997-2004.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changing patterns of multidisciplinary team treatment, early mortality, and survival in colorectal cancer.BJS open · 2022Article
- Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2021Article
- Patient experiences of the urgent cancer referral pathway-Can the NHS do better? Semi-structured interviews with patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Association of pretreatment neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and outcome in emergency colorectal cancer care.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2018Article
- Persistent inequalities in 90-day colon cancer mortality: an English cohort study.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Concordance of National Cancer Registration with self-reported breast, bowel and lung cancer in England and Wales: a prospective cohort study within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.British journal of cancer · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew international population-based studies have provided information on potential determinants of international disparities in cancer survival. This population-based study was undertaken to identify the principal differences in disease characteristics and management that accounted for previously observed poorer survival in English compared with French patients with colorectal cancer.
methodsThe study population comprised all cases of colorectal cancer diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 in the areas covered by three population-based cancer registries in France and one in England (N=40 613). To investigate the influence of clinical and treatment variables on survival, we applied multivariable excess hazard modelling based on generalised linear models with Poisson error.
resultsPoorer survival for English patients was primarily due to a larger proportion dying within the first year after diagnosis. After controlling for inter-country differences in the use of chemotherapy and surgical resection with curative intent, country of residence was no-longer associated with 1-year survival for advanced colon cancer patients (excess hazard ratio (EHR)=0.99 (0.92-1.01), P=0.095)). Longer term (2-5 years) excess hazards of death for colon and rectal cancer patients did not differ between France and England.
conclusionThis study suggests that difference in management close to diagnosis of colon and rectum cancer is related to differences in survival observed between France and England. All efforts (collection and standardisation of additional variables such as co-morbidity) to investigate the reasons for these disparities in management between these two countries, and more generally across Europe, should be encouraged.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.