Claudia Allemani1, Rhea Harewood1, Christopher J Johnson2, Helena Carreira1, Devon Spika1, Audrey Bonaventure1, Kevin Ward3, Hannah K Weir4, Michel P Coleman1. 1. Cancer Survival Group, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. 2. Cancer Data Registry of Idaho, Boise, Idaho. 3. Georgia Center for Cancer Statistics, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robust comparisons of population-based cancer survival estimates require tight adherence to the study protocol, standardized quality control, appropriate life tables of background mortality, and centralized analysis. The CONCORD program established worldwide surveillance of population-based cancer survival in 2015, analyzing individual data on 26 million patients (including 10 million US patients) diagnosed between 1995 and 2009 with 1 of 10 common malignancies. METHODS: In this Cancer supplement, we analyzed data from 37 state cancer registries that participated in the second cycle of the CONCORD program (CONCORD-2), covering approximately 80% of the US population. Data quality checks were performed in 3 consecutive phases: protocol adherence, exclusions, and editorial checks. One-, 3-, and 5-year age-standardized net survival was estimated using the Pohar Perme estimator and state- and race-specific life tables of all-cause mortality for each year. The cohort approach was adopted for patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2003, and the complete approach for patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2009. RESULTS: Articles in this supplement report population coverage, data quality indicators, and age-standardized 5-year net survival by state, race, and stage at diagnosis. Examples of tables, bar charts, and funnel plots are provided in this article. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based cancer survival is a key measure of the overall effectiveness of services in providing equitable health care. The high quality of US cancer registry data, 80% population coverage, and use of an unbiased net survival estimator ensure that the survival trends reported in this supplement are robustly comparable by race and state. The results can be used by policymakers to identify and address inequities in cancer survival in each state and for the United States nationally. Cancer 2017;123:4982-93. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Robust comparisons of population-based cancer survival estimates require tight adherence to the study protocol, standardized quality control, appropriate life tables of background mortality, and centralized analysis. The CONCORD program established worldwide surveillance of population-based cancer survival in 2015, analyzing individual data on 26 million patients (including 10 million US patients) diagnosed between 1995 and 2009 with 1 of 10 common malignancies. METHODS: In this Cancer supplement, we analyzed data from 37 state cancer registries that participated in the second cycle of the CONCORD program (CONCORD-2), covering approximately 80% of the US population. Data quality checks were performed in 3 consecutive phases: protocol adherence, exclusions, and editorial checks. One-, 3-, and 5-year age-standardized net survival was estimated using the Pohar Perme estimator and state- and race-specific life tables of all-cause mortality for each year. The cohort approach was adopted for patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2003, and the complete approach for patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2009. RESULTS: Articles in this supplement report population coverage, data quality indicators, and age-standardized 5-year net survival by state, race, and stage at diagnosis. Examples of tables, bar charts, and funnel plots are provided in this article. CONCLUSIONS: Population-based cancer survival is a key measure of the overall effectiveness of services in providing equitable health care. The high quality of US cancer registry data, 80% population coverage, and use of an unbiased net survival estimator ensure that the survival trends reported in this supplement are robustly comparable by race and state. The results can be used by policymakers to identify and address inequities in cancer survival in each state and for the United States nationally. Cancer 2017;123:4982-93. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Entities:
Keywords:
National Program for Cancer Registries (NPCR); Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER); cancer; population-based survival; statistical methods
Authors: Jacqueline W Miller; Judith Lee Smith; A Blythe Ryerson; Thomas C Tucker; Claudia Allemani Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sherri L Stewart; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Sun Hee Rim; Susan A Sabatino; Kevin C Ward; Hannah K Weir Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Thomas B Richards; S Jane Henley; Mary C Puckett; Hannah K Weir; Bin Huang; Thomas C Tucker; Claudia Allemani Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Hannah K Weir; Helena Carreira; Rhea Harewood; Devon Spika; Xiao-Si Wang; Finian Bannon; Jane V Ahn; Christopher J Johnson; Audrey Bonaventure; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Charles Stiller; Gulnar Azevedo e Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Bernard Rachet; Matthew J Soeberg; Hui You; Tomohiro Matsuda; Magdalena Bielska-Lasota; Hans Storm; Thomas C Tucker; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michel P Coleman; Manuela Quaresma; Franco Berrino; Jean-Michel Lutz; Roberta De Angelis; Riccardo Capocaccia; Paolo Baili; Bernard Rachet; Gemma Gatta; Timo Hakulinen; Andrea Micheli; Milena Sant; Hannah K Weir; J Mark Elwood; Hideaki Tsukuma; Sergio Koifman; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Silvia Francisci; Mariano Santaquilani; Arduino Verdecchia; Hans H Storm; John L Young Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Vicki B Benard; Meg Watson; Mona Saraiya; Rhea Harewood; Julie S Townsend; Antoinette M Stroup; Hannah K Weir; Claudia Allemani Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jacqueline W Miller; Judith Lee Smith; A Blythe Ryerson; Thomas C Tucker; Claudia Allemani Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sherri L Stewart; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Sun Hee Rim; Susan A Sabatino; Kevin C Ward; Hannah K Weir Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Melissa A Jim; Paulo S Pinheiro; Helena Carreira; David K Espey; Charles L Wiggins; Hannah K Weir Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Thomas B Richards; S Jane Henley; Mary C Puckett; Hannah K Weir; Bin Huang; Thomas C Tucker; Claudia Allemani Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Tomohiro Matsuda; Veronica Di Carlo; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Maja Nikšić; Audrey Bonaventure; Mikhail Valkov; Christopher J Johnson; Jacques Estève; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Sultan Eser; Gerda Engholm; Charles A Stiller; Alain Monnereau; Ryan R Woods; Otto Visser; Gek Hsiang Lim; Joanne Aitken; Hannah K Weir; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Gabrielle Truitt; Haley Gittleman; Daniel J Brat; Carol Kruchko; Reda Wilson; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2019-12-16