4.7 Article

Cancer outcomes research-a European challenge: measures of the cancer burden

Journal

MOLECULAR ONCOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 12, Pages 3225-3241

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.13012

Keywords

cancer; health-related quality of life; incidence; mortality; outcomes; survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The European Academy of Cancer Sciences has set goals to improve cancer control in Europe, aiming to reach a 75% overall cancer-specific 10-year survival rate and a decline in overall cancer mortality rates. The study proposes standardized population-based measures for assessing the cancer burden and suggests novel approaches to improve quality of life assessment.
In a mission that aims to improve cancer control throughout Europe, the European Academy of Cancer Sciences has defined two key indicators of progress: within one to two decades, overall cancer-specific 10-year survival should reach 75%, and in each country, overall cancer mortality rates should be convincingly declining. To lay the ground for assessment of progress and to promote cancer outcomes research in general, we have reviewed the most common population-based measures of the cancer burden. We emphasize the complexities and complementary approaches to measure cancer survival and the novel opportunities for improved assessment of quality of life. We propose that: incidence and mortality rates are standardized to the European population; net survival is used as the measure of prognosis but with proper adjustments for confounding when temporal trends in overall cancer survival are assessed; and cancer-specific quality of life is measured by a combination of existing questionnaires and utilizes emerging communication technologies. We conclude that all measures are important and that a meaningful interpretation also requires a deep understanding of the larger clinical and public health context.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available