4.4 Article

Trends in cancer survival in the Nordic countries 1990-2016: the NORDCAN survival studies

期刊

ACTA ONCOLOGICA
卷 59, 期 11, 页码 1266-1274

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1822544

关键词

Cancer survival; comparison; Nordic cancer registries; NORDCAN

类别

资金

  1. Swedish Cancer Society (Cancerfonden) [18-0689, 2018/744]
  2. Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsradet) [2017-01591]
  3. Swedish Research Council [2017-01591] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Differences in cancer survival between the Nordic countries have previously been reported. The aim of this study was to examine whether these differences in outcome remain, based on updated information from five national cancer registers. Materials and methods The data used for the analysis was from the NORDCAN database focusing on nine common cancers diagnosed 1990-2016 in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden with maximum follow-up through 2017. Relative survival (RS) was estimated at 1 and 5 years using flexible parametric RS models, and percentage point differences between the earliest and latest years available were calculated. Results A consistent improvement in both 1- and 5-year RS was found for most studied sites across all countries. Previously observed differences between the countries have been attenuated. The improvements were particularly pronounced in Denmark that now has cancer survival similar to the other Nordic countries. Conclusion The reasons for the observed improvements in cancer survival are likely multifactorial, including earlier diagnosis, improved treatment options, implementation of national cancer plans, uniform national cancer care guidelines and standardized patient pathways. The previous survival disadvantage in Denmark is no longer present for most sites. Continuous monitoring of cancer survival is of importance to assess the impact of changes in policies and the effectiveness of health care systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据