User login
Credit: Rhoda Baer
Differences in treatment access and quality may explain why survival rates vary widely for European patients with hematologic malignancies, researchers have reported in The Lancet Oncology.
“The good news is that 5-year survival for most cancers of the blood has increased over the past 11 years, most likely reflecting the approval of new targeted drugs in the early 2000s . . . ,” said Milena Sant, MD, of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, Italy.
“But there continue to be persistent differences between regions. For example, the uptake and use of new technologies and effective treatments has been far slower in eastern Europe than other regions. This might have contributed to the large differences in the management and outcomes of patients.”
Dr Sant and her colleagues uncovered these differences by analyzing data from 30 cancer registries covering all patients diagnosed in 20 European countries.*
The researchers compared changes in 5-year survival for 560,444 adults (aged 15 years and older) who were diagnosed with 11 lymphoid and myeloid cancers between 1997 and 2008, and followed up to the end of 2008.
Some cancers have shown particularly large increases in survival between 1997-1999 and 2006-2008, such as follicular lymphoma (59% to 74%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (42% to 55%), chronic myeloid leukemia (32% to 54%), and acute promyelocytic leukemia (50% to 62%).
The greatest improvements in survival have been in northern, central, and eastern Europe, even though adults in eastern Europe (where survival in 1997 was the lowest) continue to have lower survival for most hematologic malignancies than elsewhere.
Survival gains have been lower in southern Europe and the UK. For example, improvements in 5-year chronic myeloid leukemia survival in northern Europe (29% to 60%) and central Europe (34% to 65%) have been persistently higher than in the UK (35% to 56%) and southern Europe (37% to 55%).
Overall, the risk of death within 5 years from diagnosis fell significantly for all malignancies except myelodysplastic syndromes. But not all regions have seen such improvements.
For example, compared with the UK, the excess risk of death was significantly higher in eastern Europe than in other regions for most of the cancers investigated, but significantly lower in northern Europe.
The researchers said the most likely reasons for continuing geographical differences in survival are inequalities in the provision of care and in the availability and use of new treatments.
“We know that rituximab, imatinib, thalidomide, and bortezomib were first made available for general use in Europe in 1997, 2001, 1998, and 2003, respectively,” the researchers wrote.
“The years following general release of these drugs coincided with large increases in survival for chronic myeloid leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma, with a smaller but still significant survival increase for multiple myeloma plasmacytoma.”
However, they pointed out that the uptake and use of these drugs has not been uniform across Europe. For example, market uptake of rituximab, imatinib, and bortezomib was lower in eastern Europe than elsewhere and might explain the consistently lower survival in this region.
Writing in a linked comment article, Alastair Munro, MD, of the University of Dundee Medical School in Scotland, questioned whether improvements in survival can be attributed to drugs alone.
He said that better understanding of the conclusions from this study (called EUROCARE-5) requires additional information about changes affecting survival according to disease categories, the distribution of histological subtypes and their relation with the age distribution of the population, the distribution of stages at diagnosis, and the timing of active intervention for indolent tumors. 
*The areas included in the study were northern Europe (Denmark, Iceland, and Norway), the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), central Europe (Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland, and The Netherlands), eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia), and southern Europe (Italy, Malta, and Slovenia).
Credit: Rhoda Baer
Differences in treatment access and quality may explain why survival rates vary widely for European patients with hematologic malignancies, researchers have reported in The Lancet Oncology.
“The good news is that 5-year survival for most cancers of the blood has increased over the past 11 years, most likely reflecting the approval of new targeted drugs in the early 2000s . . . ,” said Milena Sant, MD, of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, Italy.
“But there continue to be persistent differences between regions. For example, the uptake and use of new technologies and effective treatments has been far slower in eastern Europe than other regions. This might have contributed to the large differences in the management and outcomes of patients.”
Dr Sant and her colleagues uncovered these differences by analyzing data from 30 cancer registries covering all patients diagnosed in 20 European countries.*
The researchers compared changes in 5-year survival for 560,444 adults (aged 15 years and older) who were diagnosed with 11 lymphoid and myeloid cancers between 1997 and 2008, and followed up to the end of 2008.
Some cancers have shown particularly large increases in survival between 1997-1999 and 2006-2008, such as follicular lymphoma (59% to 74%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (42% to 55%), chronic myeloid leukemia (32% to 54%), and acute promyelocytic leukemia (50% to 62%).
The greatest improvements in survival have been in northern, central, and eastern Europe, even though adults in eastern Europe (where survival in 1997 was the lowest) continue to have lower survival for most hematologic malignancies than elsewhere.
Survival gains have been lower in southern Europe and the UK. For example, improvements in 5-year chronic myeloid leukemia survival in northern Europe (29% to 60%) and central Europe (34% to 65%) have been persistently higher than in the UK (35% to 56%) and southern Europe (37% to 55%).
Overall, the risk of death within 5 years from diagnosis fell significantly for all malignancies except myelodysplastic syndromes. But not all regions have seen such improvements.
For example, compared with the UK, the excess risk of death was significantly higher in eastern Europe than in other regions for most of the cancers investigated, but significantly lower in northern Europe.
The researchers said the most likely reasons for continuing geographical differences in survival are inequalities in the provision of care and in the availability and use of new treatments.
“We know that rituximab, imatinib, thalidomide, and bortezomib were first made available for general use in Europe in 1997, 2001, 1998, and 2003, respectively,” the researchers wrote.
“The years following general release of these drugs coincided with large increases in survival for chronic myeloid leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma, with a smaller but still significant survival increase for multiple myeloma plasmacytoma.”
However, they pointed out that the uptake and use of these drugs has not been uniform across Europe. For example, market uptake of rituximab, imatinib, and bortezomib was lower in eastern Europe than elsewhere and might explain the consistently lower survival in this region.
Writing in a linked comment article, Alastair Munro, MD, of the University of Dundee Medical School in Scotland, questioned whether improvements in survival can be attributed to drugs alone.
He said that better understanding of the conclusions from this study (called EUROCARE-5) requires additional information about changes affecting survival according to disease categories, the distribution of histological subtypes and their relation with the age distribution of the population, the distribution of stages at diagnosis, and the timing of active intervention for indolent tumors.
*The areas included in the study were northern Europe (Denmark, Iceland, and Norway), the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), central Europe (Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland, and The Netherlands), eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia), and southern Europe (Italy, Malta, and Slovenia).
Credit: Rhoda Baer
Differences in treatment access and quality may explain why survival rates vary widely for European patients with hematologic malignancies, researchers have reported in The Lancet Oncology.
“The good news is that 5-year survival for most cancers of the blood has increased over the past 11 years, most likely reflecting the approval of new targeted drugs in the early 2000s . . . ,” said Milena Sant, MD, of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, Italy.
“But there continue to be persistent differences between regions. For example, the uptake and use of new technologies and effective treatments has been far slower in eastern Europe than other regions. This might have contributed to the large differences in the management and outcomes of patients.”
Dr Sant and her colleagues uncovered these differences by analyzing data from 30 cancer registries covering all patients diagnosed in 20 European countries.*
The researchers compared changes in 5-year survival for 560,444 adults (aged 15 years and older) who were diagnosed with 11 lymphoid and myeloid cancers between 1997 and 2008, and followed up to the end of 2008.
Some cancers have shown particularly large increases in survival between 1997-1999 and 2006-2008, such as follicular lymphoma (59% to 74%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (42% to 55%), chronic myeloid leukemia (32% to 54%), and acute promyelocytic leukemia (50% to 62%).
The greatest improvements in survival have been in northern, central, and eastern Europe, even though adults in eastern Europe (where survival in 1997 was the lowest) continue to have lower survival for most hematologic malignancies than elsewhere.
Survival gains have been lower in southern Europe and the UK. For example, improvements in 5-year chronic myeloid leukemia survival in northern Europe (29% to 60%) and central Europe (34% to 65%) have been persistently higher than in the UK (35% to 56%) and southern Europe (37% to 55%).
Overall, the risk of death within 5 years from diagnosis fell significantly for all malignancies except myelodysplastic syndromes. But not all regions have seen such improvements.
For example, compared with the UK, the excess risk of death was significantly higher in eastern Europe than in other regions for most of the cancers investigated, but significantly lower in northern Europe.
The researchers said the most likely reasons for continuing geographical differences in survival are inequalities in the provision of care and in the availability and use of new treatments.
“We know that rituximab, imatinib, thalidomide, and bortezomib were first made available for general use in Europe in 1997, 2001, 1998, and 2003, respectively,” the researchers wrote.
“The years following general release of these drugs coincided with large increases in survival for chronic myeloid leukemia, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma, with a smaller but still significant survival increase for multiple myeloma plasmacytoma.”
However, they pointed out that the uptake and use of these drugs has not been uniform across Europe. For example, market uptake of rituximab, imatinib, and bortezomib was lower in eastern Europe than elsewhere and might explain the consistently lower survival in this region.
Writing in a linked comment article, Alastair Munro, MD, of the University of Dundee Medical School in Scotland, questioned whether improvements in survival can be attributed to drugs alone.
He said that better understanding of the conclusions from this study (called EUROCARE-5) requires additional information about changes affecting survival according to disease categories, the distribution of histological subtypes and their relation with the age distribution of the population, the distribution of stages at diagnosis, and the timing of active intervention for indolent tumors.
*The areas included in the study were northern Europe (Denmark, Iceland, and Norway), the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), central Europe (Austria, France, Germany, Switzerland, and The Netherlands), eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Slovakia), and southern Europe (Italy, Malta, and Slovenia).