INTRODUCTION: Data on the survival of all incident cases collected by population-based cancer registries make it possible to evaluate the overall performance of diagnostic and therapeutic actions on cancer in those populations. EUROCARE-3 is the third round of the EUROCARE project, the largest cancer registry population based collaborative study on survival in European cancer patients. The EUROCARE-3 study analysed the survival of cancer patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 and followed-up to 1999. Sixty-seven cancer registries of 22 European countries characterised by differing health systems participated in the study. This paper includes essays providing brief overviews of the state and evolution of the health systems of the considered countries and comments on the relation between cancer survival in Europe and some European macro-economic and health system indicators, in the 1990s. OVERVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN HEALTH SYSTEMS: The European health systems underwent a great deal of reorganisation in the last decade; a general tendency being to facilitate expanding involvement of the private sector in health care, a process which occurred mainly in the eastern countries (i.e. the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). In contrast, organisational changes in the northern European countries (i.e. Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden) tended to confirm the established public sector systems. Other countries, including the UK and some southern European countries (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Malta and Italy) have reduced the public role while the systems remain basically public, at least at present. Our findings clearly suggest that cancer survival (all cancer combined) is related to macro-economic variables such as the gross domestic product (GDP), the total national (public and private) expenditure on health (TNEH) and the total public expenditure on health (TPEH). We found, however, that survival is related to wealth (GDP), but only up to a certain level, after which survival continues to be related to the level of health investment (both TNEH and TPEH). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the TNEH increased during the 1990s in all EUROCARE-3 countries, while the ratio of TPEH to TNEH reduced in all countries except Portugal. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer survival depends on the widespread application of effective diagnosis and treatment modalities, but our enquiry suggests that the availability of these depends on macro-economic determinants, including health and public health investment. Analysis of the relationship between health system organisation and cancer outcome is complicated and requires more information than is at present available. To describe cancer and cancer management in Europe, the European Cancer Health Indicator Project (EUROCHIP) has proposed a list of indicators that have to be adopted to evaluate the effects on outcome of proposed health system modifications.
INTRODUCTION: Data on the survival of all incident cases collected by population-based cancer registries make it possible to evaluate the overall performance of diagnostic and therapeutic actions on cancer in those populations. EUROCARE-3 is the third round of the EUROCARE project, the largest cancer registry population based collaborative study on survival in European cancerpatients. The EUROCARE-3 study analysed the survival of cancerpatients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 and followed-up to 1999. Sixty-seven cancer registries of 22 European countries characterised by differing health systems participated in the study. This paper includes essays providing brief overviews of the state and evolution of the health systems of the considered countries and comments on the relation between cancer survival in Europe and some European macro-economic and health system indicators, in the 1990s. OVERVIEW OF THE EUROPEAN HEALTH SYSTEMS: The European health systems underwent a great deal of reorganisation in the last decade; a general tendency being to facilitate expanding involvement of the private sector in health care, a process which occurred mainly in the eastern countries (i.e. the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia). In contrast, organisational changes in the northern European countries (i.e. Denmark, Iceland, Finland and Sweden) tended to confirm the established public sector systems. Other countries, including the UK and some southern European countries (i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Malta and Italy) have reduced the public role while the systems remain basically public, at least at present. Our findings clearly suggest that cancer survival (all cancer combined) is related to macro-economic variables such as the gross domestic product (GDP), the total national (public and private) expenditure on health (TNEH) and the total public expenditure on health (TPEH). We found, however, that survival is related to wealth (GDP), but only up to a certain level, after which survival continues to be related to the level of health investment (both TNEH and TPEH). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the TNEH increased during the 1990s in all EUROCARE-3 countries, while the ratio of TPEH to TNEH reduced in all countries except Portugal. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer survival depends on the widespread application of effective diagnosis and treatment modalities, but our enquiry suggests that the availability of these depends on macro-economic determinants, including health and public health investment. Analysis of the relationship between health system organisation and cancer outcome is complicated and requires more information than is at present available. To describe cancer and cancer management in Europe, the European Cancer Health Indicator Project (EUROCHIP) has proposed a list of indicators that have to be adopted to evaluate the effects on outcome of proposed health system modifications.
Authors: Christopher J Johnson; Hannah K Weir; Aliza K Fink; Robert R German; Jack L Finch; Randi K Rycroft; Daixin Yin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Maria Kyrgiou; Ilkka E J Kalliala; Anita Mitra; Christina Fotopoulou; Sadaf Ghaem-Maghami; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Margaret Cruickshank; Marc Arbyn; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-01-26
Authors: Hannah K Weir; Christopher J Johnson; Angela B Mariotto; Donna Turner; Reda J Wilson; Diane Nishri; Kevin C Ward Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2014-11
Authors: Philippe Autier; Mathieu Boniol; Carlo La Vecchia; Carlo LaVecchia; Lars Vatten; Anna Gavin; Clarisse Héry; Mary Heanue Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-08-11
Authors: Mari Punab; Katrin Palk; Mirja Varik; Edward Laane; Hele Everaus; Erik Holmberg; Erik Hulegårdh; Lovisa Wennström; Soodabeh Safai-Kutti; Dick Stockelberg; Jack Kutti Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2013-02-09 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Mohammad-Kazem Atef-Vahid; Mehdi Nasr-Esfahani; Mohsen Saberi Esfeedvajani; Homayoon Naji-Isfahani; Mohammad Reza Shojaei; Yasavoli M Masoumeh; S Ashrafodin Goushegir Journal: J Res Med Sci Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: T Sokka; H Kautiainen; T Pincus; S Toloza; G da Rocha Castelar Pinheiro; J Lazovskis; M L Hetland; T Peets; K Immonen; J F Maillefert; A A Drosos; R Alten; C Pohl; B Rojkovich; B Bresnihan; P Minnock; M Cazzato; S Bombardieri; S Rexhepi; M Rexhepi; D Andersone; S Stropuviene; M Huisman; S Sierakowski; D Karateev; V Skakic; A Naranjo; E Baecklund; D Henrohn; F Gogus; H Badsha; A Mofti; P Taylor; C McClinton; Y Yazici Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2009-07-30 Impact factor: 19.103