Cancer survival improves in UK but still lags behind other high income countries: response to a further critic
I recommend that Dr Herron looks at the Methods section of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 paper [1]:
“In this longitudinal, population-based study, we obtained patient-level data on primary cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, and ovary from 21 population-based cancer registries covering 21 jurisdictions in seven countries: Australia (New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia), Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan), Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).”
The number of cases of each cancer should be related to the population covered by each registry, not the national population of each country. It so happens that the UK achieves virtually complete coverage by its cancer registries, another triumph of the NHS. Notwithstanding the fact that there are more registered cases in the UK, there are sufficient cases recorded by the other registries and their data quality is also sufficient to permit survival estimates with narrow enough confidence intervals to be sure that the UK shortfall in outcomes is real.
1] Arnold M, Rutherford M, Bardot A, et al. Progress in cancer control: survival, mortality and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population based study. Lancet Oncol2019. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
16 October 2019
S. Michael Crawford
Clinical Lead for Research
Airedale NHS Foundation Trust
Skipton Road, Steeton, Keighley, West Yorkshire BD20 6TD
Rapid Response:
Cancer survival improves in UK but still lags behind other high income countries: response to a further critic
I recommend that Dr Herron looks at the Methods section of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 paper [1]:
“In this longitudinal, population-based study, we obtained patient-level data on primary cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, liver, pancreas, lung, and ovary from 21 population-based cancer registries covering 21 jurisdictions in seven countries: Australia (New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia), Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Saskatchewan), Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, and the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).”
The number of cases of each cancer should be related to the population covered by each registry, not the national population of each country. It so happens that the UK achieves virtually complete coverage by its cancer registries, another triumph of the NHS. Notwithstanding the fact that there are more registered cases in the UK, there are sufficient cases recorded by the other registries and their data quality is also sufficient to permit survival estimates with narrow enough confidence intervals to be sure that the UK shortfall in outcomes is real.
1] Arnold M, Rutherford M, Bardot A, et al. Progress in cancer control: survival, mortality and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population based study. Lancet Oncol2019. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5.
Competing interests: No competing interests