You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 70, Issue 1
  • Colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries 2010–2014: variation by age and stage at diagnosis (the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project)

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Colon
Original research
Colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries 2010–2014: variation by age and stage at diagnosis (the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project)
  1. Marzieh Araghi1,
  2. Melina Arnold1,
  3. Mark J Rutherford1,2,
  4. Marianne Grønlie Guren3,
  5. Citadel J Cabasag1,
  6. Aude Bardot1,
  7. Jacques Ferlay1,
  8. Hanna Tervonen4,
  9. Lorraine Shack5,
  10. Ryan R Woods6,
  11. Nathalie Saint-Jacques7,
  12. Prithwish De8,
  13. Carol McClure9,
  14. Gerda Engholm10,
  15. Anna T Gavin11,
  16. Eileen Morgan1,11,
  17. Paul M Walsh12,
  18. Christopher Jackson13,
  19. Geoff Porter14,
  20. Bjorn Møller15,
  21. Oliver Bucher16,
  22. Michael Eden17,
  23. Dianne L O’Connell18,
  24. Freddie Bray1,
  25. Isabelle Soerjomataram1
  1. 1 Section of Cancer Surveillance, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
  2. 2 Biostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
  3. 3 Department of Oncology and K.G. Jebsen Colorectal Cancer Research Centre, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  4. 4 Cancer Institute NSW, Alexandria, New South Wales, Australia
  5. 5 Cancer Control Alberta, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  6. 6 BC Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  7. 7 Registry & Analytics, Nova Scotia Health Authority Cancer Care Program, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
  8. 8 Surveillance and Cancer Registry, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  9. 9 PEI Cancer Registry, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada
  10. 10 Cancer Prevention & Documentation, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
  11. 11 Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  12. 12 National Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, Ireland
  13. 13 Cancer Society of New Zealand Inc, Wellington, New Zealand
  14. 14 Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  15. 15 Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
  16. 16 Population Oncology, CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
  17. 17 National Cancer Registry and Analysis Service, London, UK
  18. 18 Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Isabelle Soerjomataram, Section of Cancer Surveillance, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon 69008, France; soerjomatarami{at}iarc.fr

Abstract

Objectives As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) SURVMARK-2 project, we provide the most recent estimates of colon and rectal cancer survival in seven high-income countries by age and stage at diagnosis.

Methods Data from 386 870 patients diagnosed during 2010–2014 from 19 cancer registries in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) were analysed. 1-year and 5-year net survival from colon and rectal cancer were estimated by stage at diagnosis, age and country,

Results (One1-year) and 5-year net survival varied between (77.1% and 87.5%) 59.1% and 70.9% and (84.8% and 90.0%) 61.6% and 70.9% for colon and rectal cancer, respectively. Survival was consistently higher in Australia, Canada and Norway, with smaller proportions of patients with metastatic disease in Canada and Australia. International differences in (1-year) and 5-year survival were most pronounced for regional and distant colon cancer ranging between (86.0% and 94.1%) 62.5% and 77.5% and (40.7% and 56.4%) 8.0% and 17.3%, respectively. Similar patterns were observed for rectal cancer. Stage distribution of colon and rectal cancers by age varied across countries with marked survival differences for patients with metastatic disease and diagnosed at older ages (irrespective of stage).

Conclusions Survival disparities for colon and rectal cancer across high-income countries are likely explained by earlier diagnosis in some countries and differences in treatment for regional and distant disease, as well as older age at diagnosis. Differences in cancer registration practice and different staging systems across countries may have impacted the comparisons.

  • surveillance
  • colorectal cancer

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320625

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @EileenMorgan_

    • Contributors Study concept and design: MaA, MeA, FB, IS. Data collection and interpretation of data: HT, LS, RRW, NS-J, PD, CM, GE, AG, EM, PMW, CJC, BM, OB. Data analysis: MaA, MJR, AB, JF. Drafting the manuscript: MaA, MeA, IS. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors.

    • Funding The ICBP is funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; Cancer Council Victoria; Cancer Institute NSW; Cancer Research UK; Danish Cancer Society; National Cancer Registry Ireland; The Cancer Society of New Zealand; NHS England; Norwegian Cancer Society; Public Health Agency Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry; The Scottish Government; Western Australia Department of Health; and Wales Cancer Network.

    • Disclaimer Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available.