Allemani C.,Analytical Epidemiology Unit |
Storm H.,Danish Cancer Society |
Voogd A.C.,Eindhoven Cancer Registry |
Holli K.,University of Tampere |
And 24 more authors.
European Journal of Cancer
On a population-based sample of 13,500 European breast cancer patients mostly diagnosed in 1996-1998 and archived by 26 cancer registries, we used logistic regression to estimate odds of conservative surgery plus radiotherapy (BCS + RT) versus other surgery, in T1N0M0 cases by country, adjusted for age and tumour size. We also examined: BCS + RT in relation to total national expenditure on health (TNEH); chemotherapy use in N+ patients; tamoxifen use in oestrogen-positive patients; and whether ≥10 nodes were examined in lymphadenectomies. Stage, diagnostic examinations and treatments were obtained from clinical records. T1N0M0 cases were 33.0% of the total. 55.0% of T1N0M0 received BCS + RT, range 9.0% (Estonia) to 78.0% (France). Compared to France, odds of BCS + RT were lower in all other countries, even after adjusting for covariates. Women of 70-99 years had 67% lower odds of BCS + RT than women of 15-39 years. BCS + RT was 20% in low TNEH, 58% in medium TNEH, and 64% in high TNEH countries. Chemotherapy was given to 63.0% of N+ and 90.7% of premenopausal N+ (15-49 years), with marked variation by country, mainly in post-menopause (50-99 years). Hormonal therapy was given to 55.5% of oestrogen-positive cases, 44.6% at 15-49 years and 58.8% at 50-99 years; with marked variation across countries especially in premenopause. The variation in breast cancer care across Europe prior to the development of European guidelines was striking; older women received BCS + RT much less than younger women; and adherence to 'standard care' varied even among countries with medium/high TNEH, suggesting sub-optimal resource allocation. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Source
Baili P.,Analytic Epidemiology and Health Impact Unit |
Di Salvo F.,Analytic Epidemiology and Health Impact Unit |
de Lorenzo F.,Federazione italiana delle Associazioni di Volontariato in Oncologia FAVO |
Maietta F.,Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali CENSIS |
And 18 more authors.
Supportive Care in Cancer
Purpose: To illustrate the out-of-pocket (OOP) costs incurred by a population-based group of patients from 5 to 10 years since their cancer diagnosis in a country with a nationwide public health system. Methods: Interviews on OOP costs to a sample of 5–10 year prevalent cases randomly extracted from four population-based cancer registries (CRs), two in the north and two in the south of Italy. The patients’ general practitioners (GPs) gave assurance about the patient’s physical and psychological condition for the interview. A zero-inflated negative binomial model was used to analyze OOP cost determinants. Results: Two hundred six cancer patients were interviewed (48 % of the original sample). On average, a patient in the north spent €69 monthly, against €244 in the south. The main differences are for transport, room, and board (TRB) to reach the hospital and/or the cancer specialist (north €0; south €119). Everywhere, OOP costs without TRB costs were higher for patients with a low quality of life. Conclusions: Despite the limited participation, our study sample’s characteristics are similar to those of the Italian cancer prevalence population, allowing us to generalize the results. The higher OOP costs in the south may be due to the scarcity of oncologic structures, obliging patients to seek assistance far from their residence. Implications for cancer survivors Cancer survivors need descriptive studies to show realistic data about their status. Future Italian and European descriptive studies on cancer survivorship should be based on population CRs and involve GPs in order to approach the patient at best. © 2015, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. Source
Di Salvo F.,Analytical Epidemiology and Health Impact Unit |
Baili P.,Analytical Epidemiology and Health Impact Unit |
Vicentini M.,Reggio Emilia Cancer Registry |
Tumino R.,Ragusa Cancer Registry |
And 37 more authors.
Aims and background. In Italy more than 55% of cancer patients live for more than 5 years after diagnosis, sometimes with several cancer-related sequelae. For this reason rehabilitation must offer not only physical interventions but also psychological, clinical, social and nutritional support. The CAREMORE pilot study was designed to assess whether cancer registries could serve to collect information on rehabilitation services, to describe and quantify the services provided by the National Health Service, and to examine the allocation of rehabilitation services to cancer patients. Methods and study design. This was a pilot population-based cohort study. A sample of 1200 patients was identified from the databases of the Varese, Genoa, Reggio Emilia, Sassari and Ragusa cancer registries, all diagnosed in 2002 and followed for 5 years. For 4 cancer sites a list of rehabilitation items to be collected was drafted by a joint community of researchers and voluntary associations, with variables regarding rehabilitation data and follow-up. Data were analyzed by groups of patients, vital status, sex, and age. Results. This pilot study suggested it is useful to collect information on several rehabilitation services: disability benefits, home care, aids and other support; it was not possible to collect reliable information on nutritional and psychological rehabilitation. In all, 36% of the sample applied for disability benefits, but with important differences between cancer sites. Eleven percent of the sample obtained home care, with no substantial differences between cancer sites, and 16% received at least one aid, with percentages varying from 27% for rectal cancer to 8% for lymphoma patients. Conclusions. The pilot study indicated that cancer registries could collect information on rehabilitation services. In the future it would be interesting to expand the roles of these registries to factors that influence quality of life, taking into account the possibility of collecting more information by actually interviewing patients. Copyright - Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore. Source