SummaryBackgroundSurvival from colorectal cancer has been shown to be lower in Denmark and England than in comparable high-income countries. We used data from national colorectal cancer registries to assess whether differences in the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery could contribute to international differences in colorectal cancer survival.MethodsIn this population-based study, we collected data from all patients aged 18–99 years diagnosed with primary, invasive, colorectal adenocarcinoma from Jan 1, 2010, to Dec 31, 2012, in Denmark, England, Norway, and Sweden, from national colorectal cancer registries. We estimated age-standardised net survival using multivariable modelling, and we compared the proportion of patients receiving resectional surgery by stage and age. We used logistic regression to predict the resectional surgery status patients would have had if they had been treated as in the best performing country, given their individual characteristics.FindingsWe extracted registry data for 139 457 adult patients with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma: 12 958 patients in Denmark, 97 466 in England, 11 450 in Norway, and 17 583 in Sweden. 3-year colon cancer survival was lower in England (63·9%, 95% CI 63·5–64·3) and Denmark (65·7%, 64·7–66·8) than in Norway (69·5%, 68·4–70·5) and Sweden (72·1%, 71·2–73·0). Rectal cancer survival was lower in England (69·7%, 69·1–70·3) than in the other three countries (Denmark 72·5%, 71·1–74·0; Sweden 74·1%, 72·7–75·4; and Norway 75·0%, 73·1–76·8). We found no significant differences in survival for patients with stage I disease in any of the four countries. 3-year survival after stage II or III rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was consistently lower in England (stage II rectal cancer 86·4%, 95% CI 85·0–87·6; stage III rectal cancer 75·5%, 74·2–76·7; and stage IV colon cancer 20·5%, 19·9–21·1) than in Norway (94·1%, 91·5–96·0; 83·4%, 80·1–86·1; and 33·0%, 31·0–35·1) and Sweden (92·9%, 90·8–94·6; 80·6%, 78·2–82·7; and 23·7%, 22·0–25·3). 3-year survival after stage II rectal cancer and stage IV colon cancer was also lower in England than in Denmark (stage II rectal cancer 91·2%, 88·8–93·1; and stage IV colon cancer 23·5%, 21·9–25·1). The total proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery ranged from 47 803 (68·4%) of 69 867 patients in England to 9582 (81·3%) of 11 786 in Sweden for colon cancer, and from 16 544 (59·9%) of 27 599 in England to 4106 (70·8%) of 5797 in Sweden for rectal cancer. This range was widest for patients older than 75 years (colon cancer 19 078 [59·7%] of 31 946 patients in England to 4429 [80·9%] of 5474 in Sweden; rectal cancer 4663 [45·7%] of 10 195 in England to 1342 [61·9%] of 2169 in Sweden), and the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was consistently lowest in England. The age gradient of the decline in the proportion of patients treated with resectional surgery was steeper in England than in the other three countries in all stage categories. In the hypothetical scenario where all patient...

BackgroundCancer Waiting Time targets have been integrated into successive cancer strategies as indicators of cancer care quality in England. These targets are reported in national statistics for all cancers combined, but there is mixed evidence of their benefits and it is unclear if meeting Cancer Waiting Time targets, as currently defined and published, is associated with improved survival for individual patients, and thus if survival is a good metric for judging the utility of the targets.Methods and findingsWe used individually-linked data from the National Cancer Waiting Times Monitoring Dataset (CWT), the cancer registry and other routinely collected datasets. The study population consisted of all adult patients diagnosed in England (2009–2013) with colorectal (164,890), lung (171,208) or ovarian (24,545) cancer, of whom 82%, 76%, and 77%, respectively, had a CWT matching record.The main outcome was one-year net survival for all matched patients by target attainment (‘met/not met’). The time to each type of treatment for the 31-day and 62-day targets was estimated using multivariable analyses, adjusting for age, sex, tumour stage and deprivation.The two-week wait (TWW) from GP referral to specialist consultation and 31-day target from decision to treat to start of treatment were met for more than 95% of patients, but the 62-day target from GP referral to start of treatment was missed more often. There was little evidence of an association between meeting the TWW target and one-year net survival, but for the 31-day and 62-day targets, survival was worse for those for whom the targets were met (e.g. colorectal cancer: survival 89.1% (95%CI 88.9–89.4) for patients with 31-day target met, 96.9% (95%CI 96.1–91.7) for patients for whom it was not met). Time-to-treatment analyses showed that treatments recorded as palliative were given earlier in time, than treatments with potentially curative intent.There are possible limitations in the accuracy of the categorisation of treatment variables which do not allow for fully distinguishing, for example, between curative and palliative intent; and it is difficult in these data to assess the appropriateness of treatment by stage. These limitations in the nature of the data do not affect the survival estimates found, but do mean that it is not possible to separate those patients for whom the times between referral, decision to treat and start of treatment could actually have an impact on the clinical outcomes. This means that the use of these survival measures to evaluate the targets would be misleading.ConclusionsBased on these individually-linked data, and for the cancers we looked at, we did not find that Cancer Waiting Time targets being met translates into improved one-year survival. Patients may benefit psychologically from limited waits which encourage timely treatment, but one-year survival is not a useful measure for evaluating Trust performance with regards to Cancer Waiting Time targets, which are not currently stratified by stage or treatment type. As such, the...

Background:Stage at diagnosis is a strong predictor of cancer survival. Differences in stage distributions and stage-specific management help explain geographic differences in cancer outcomes. Stage information is thus essential to improve policies for cancer control. Despite recent progress, stage information is often incomplete. Data collection methods and definition of stage categories are rarely reported. These inconsistencies may result in assigning conflicting stage for single tumours and confound the interpretation of international comparisons and temporal trends of stage-specific cancer outcomes. We propose an algorithm that uses multiple routine, population-based data sources to obtain the most complete and reliable stage information possible.Methods:Our hierarchical approach derives a single stage category per tumour prioritising information deemed of best quality from multiple data sets and various individual components of tumour stage. It incorporates rules from the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification of malignant tumours. The algorithm is illustrated for colorectal and lung cancer in England. We linked the cancer-specific Clinical Audit data (collected from clinical multi-disciplinary teams) to national cancer registry data. We prioritise stage variables from the Clinical Audit and added information from the registry when needed. We compared stage distribution and stage-specific net survival using two sets of definitions of summary stage with contrasting levels of assumptions for dealing with missing individual TNM components. This exercise extends a previous algorithm we developed for international comparisons of stage-specific survival.Results:Between 2008 and 2012, 163 915 primary colorectal cancer cases and 168 158 primary lung cancer cases were diagnosed in adults in England. Using the most restrictive definition of summary stage (valid information on all individual TNM components), colorectal cancer stage completeness was 56.6% (from 33.8% in 2008 to 85.2% in 2012). Lung cancer stage completeness was 76.6% (from 57.3% in 2008 to 91.4% in 2012). Stage distribution differed between strategies to define summary stage. Stage-specific survival was consistent with published reports.Conclusions:We offer a robust strategy to harmonise the derivation of stage that can be adapted for other cancers and data sources in different countries. The general approach of prioritising good-quality information, reporting sources of individual TNM variables, and reporting of assumptions for dealing with missing data is applicable to any population-based cancer research using stage. Moreover, our research highlights the need for further transparency in the way stage categories are defined and reported, acknowledging the limitations, and potential discrepancies of using readily available stage variables.