ArticleBMC public health2019
Global comparison of cancer outcomes: standardization and correlation with healthcare expenditures.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association of insurance status among cancer patients and survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal for equity in health · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Web-Based Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Real-world treatment patterns in stage III and IV melanoma patients: insights from a global multi-center chart review study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Substantial Increase in the Costs of Antineoplastic Agents in the USA from 2010 to 2021.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Acetylation of Histone H3 in Cancer Progression and Prognosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Approaching a cure for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: how close are we from there?The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2024Article
- The Role of Robotics in Meeting Institutional Goals: A Unified Strategy to Facilitate Program Excellence.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- Demographic Analysis of Cancer Research Priorities and Treatment Correlations.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in Spain: from clinical trials to real-world evidence.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Article
- Do Patients Residing in Provincial Areas Transport and Spend More on Cancer Treatment in Korea?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- The hidden curve behind COVID-19 outbreak: the impact of delay in treatment initiation in cancer patients and how to mitigate the additional risk of dying-the head and neck cancer model.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2021Article
- The role of income disparities on survival in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma in the targeted therapy era.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Article
- Inhaled chemotherapy adverse effects: mechanisms and protection methods.Lung cancer management · 2020Review
- Knockdown of lncRNA ABHD11-AS1 Suppresses the Tumorigenesis of Pancreatic Cancer via Sponging miR-1231.OncoTargets and therapy · 2020Article
- Analyzing Global Cancer Control: Progress of National Cancer Control Programs through Composite Indicators and Regression Modeling.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- An Analysis of Radiotherapy Machine Requirements in India: Impact of the Pandemic and Regional Disparities.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Comparison of Cancer Mortality and Incidence Between New Zealand and Australia and Reflection on Differences in Cancer Care: An Ecological Cross-Sectional Study of 2014-2018.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer outcomes vary widely among different countries. However, comparisons of cost-effectiveness and cost-efficiency of different systems are complex because the incidences of different cancers vary across countries and their chances of cure also differ substantially. We aim to propose a new standardized method for global comparison and to explore its relationship with economic indicators.
methodsCancer statistics from all 184 countries and 27 cancers listed in GLOBOCAN 2012 were analyzed. The complement of age-standardized mortality/incidence ratio [1 - (ASM/ASI)] was taken as the proxy relative survival (RS). Accounting for various country-specific cancer patterns, the cancer site-standardized proxy RS (proxy SS-RS) of individual countries were calculated by weighting the proportion of specific cancer sites as compared with the global pattern of incidence. Economic indicators of different countries listed by the World Bank were correlated with corresponding proxy SS-RS.
resultsSubstantial variation in site-specific survival and new case distribution supported the use of proxy SS-RS, which ranged from 0.124 to 0.622 (median 0.359). The median total health expenditure per capita (HEpc) increased from US$44 for countries with proxy SS-RS < 0.25, to US$4643 for countries with proxy SS-RS ≥0.55. Results from logarithmic regression model showed exponential increase in total HEpc for better outcome. The expenditure varied widely among different strata, with the widest difference observed among countries with SS-RS ≥0.55 (total HEpc US$1412-$9361).
conclusionsSimilar to age-standardization, cancer site-standardization adjusted for variation in pattern of cancer incidence provides the best available and feasible strategies for comparing cancer survivals across countries globally. Furthermore, cancer outcome correlated significantly with economic indicators and the amount of HEpc escalated exponentially. Our findings call for more in-depth studies applying cancer-site standardization to provide essential data for sharing of experience and urgent actions by policy makers to develop comprehensive and financially sustainable cancer plan for greater equity.
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.