Search

Your search keyword '"Botha, J. L."' showing total 7 results
Start Over Author "Botha, J. L." Topic breast neoplasms
7 results on '"Botha, J. L."'

1. Breast cancer incidence and mortality trends in 16 European countries.

Author

Botha JL, Bray F, Sankila R, and Parkin DM

Subjects
Adult, Age Distribution, Aged, Europe epidemiology, Female, Humans, Incidence, Middle Aged, Mortality trends, Residence Characteristics, Time Factors, Breast Neoplasms mortality
Abstract

Trends in the incidence of and mortality from breast cancer result from a variety of influences including screening programmes, such as those introduced in several European countries in the late 1980s. Incidence and mortality rates for 16 European countries are analysed. Incidence increased in all countries. The estimated annual percent change (EAPC) varied from 0.8 to 2.8% in prescreening years in 6 'screened' countries and from 1.2 to 3.0% in 10 'non-screened' countries. Screening related temporary increases were visible. Earlier mortality trends were maintained in the most recent decade in Estonia (EAPC +1.8%) and Sweden (-1.2%). In other countries, previously increasing trends changed. Trends flattened in Finland, Denmark, France, Italy and Norway (EAPC 0.0 to -0.3%), while they declined in England and Wales (-3.1%), Scotland (-2.0%), and The Netherlands (-1.0%), all of which have national screening programmes, and in Slovakia (-1.1%), Spain (-0.7%), and Switzerland (-1.1%). In some countries with screening programmes, declines in mortality started before screening was introduced, and declines also occurred in non-screened age groups and in some countries without national screening programmes. This suggests that the major determinants of the observed trends vary among the countries and may include earlier detection through screening in countries where this has been introduced, but also improvements in therapy, in countries with or without screening.

Published
2003
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Breast and cervical cancer survival: making sense of "league tables".

Author

Botha JL, Silcocks PB, Bright N, and Redgrave P

Subjects
Cohort Studies, Female, Humans, Public Health Administration, Random Allocation, Registries, State Medicine, Survival Rate, United Kingdom epidemiology, Breast Neoplasms mortality, Life Tables, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms mortality
Abstract

During 1998, the Department of Health proposed to use survival rates of cervical and breast cancer in the 1989/90 incidence cohort as indicators of care. Valid interpretation was of concern within Trent and the Trent Cancer Registry responded by performing additional analyses. Trent Cancer Registry registrations for 1989/90 were re-analysed and the stability of districts' ranks for that cohort was investigated using random simulation techniques. Stability of ranks across more recent cohorts was investigated and attempts made to use all available information. The Department of Health's analyses were confirmed by our re-analysis of the 1989/90 cohort: Rotherham residents appeared to have the "worst" survival for cervical cancer, and Sheffield residents for breast cancer, although not statistically significantly so. Random simulations indicated that ranks based on a single cohort are not stable: for example Sheffield (ranked tenth for 1-y breast cancer survival) was ranked third or better in 6% of randomisations. Ranks were also unstable across cohorts: for example Rotherham 1-y cervical cancer survival was ranked tenth for 1989/90, fifth for 1991/92 and tenth for 1993/94. Analysis of 3-y running averages provided better information than the league table approach. Most districts improved over time, to different degrees, and similar sized gaps remained between the "best" and the "worst" districts. This analysis illustrates the need to be circumspect when interpreting "league tables" based on a single year or cohort analysis. League tables are based on ranks: clearly a large difference in rank may reflect only trivial (ie medically unimportant) differences in actual outcome. Lack of a statistically significant difference in survival between two districts does not mean their survival is equivalent. Even for a common cancer, like breast cancer, rankings were unstable from cohort to cohort. At the Registry we propose to perform these trend analyses routinely in future, adjusting, when possible, for the effects of deprivation and stage at diagnosis.

Published
2001
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Indirect discrimination and breast screening.

Author

Botha JL, Manku-Scott TK, Moledina F, and Williams A

Subjects
Asia ethnology, Breast Neoplasms psychology, England, Female, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Poverty Areas, Prejudice, Urban Population, Breast Neoplasms prevention & control, Mass Screening statistics & numerical data, Minority Groups psychology
Abstract

Uptake of screening services in inner-city communities has been low, particularly in older age groups, lower social classes, and ethnic minorities. In Leicester City, where up to 25% of the population belong to ethnic minorities, this may have important implications for breast screening. We randomly sampled 701 inner-city women aged 45 to 64 years, stratified by neighborhood and by women's "likely home language." Trained interviewers succeeded in interviewing 79% of those eligible, and we report here a preliminary analysis of 413 respondents. Knowledge of breast cancer and screening varied markedly and significantly by actual language: 60.4% of English-speaking and 12.5% of non-English-speaking women correctly answered 10 or more questions (of 14) about breast cancer and screening (chi 2(1) = 89.884; P = .000). Despite that, 80% or more women stated their intention to attend for screening and assessment if necessary, irrespective of neighborhood, language, age, or social class. We suggest that the difference in knowledge between language groups arose from indirect discrimination in the way in which health-related information is disseminated in British society. However, after providing appropriate screening information, we report similarly high intended acceptance rates in the two language groups.

Published
1993

5. Audit of user satisfaction with the Leicestershire Breast Screening Service; women attending for assessment of abnormal mammograms.

Author

Smith S, Botha JL, Goosey R, and Daintith H

Subjects
Anxiety, Breast Neoplasms psychology, England, Female, Humans, Professional-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Breast Neoplasms prevention & control, Mammography standards, Patient Satisfaction statistics & numerical data
Abstract

Women returning for assessment of abnormal breast screens completed user satisfaction questionnaires: 103 at the clinic (100 per cent response) and 79 (87 per cent) of 91 without malignancies a week later. Women were satisfied with invitations' timing and with the information in one of three letter versions tested. A small group (11 per cent) had not discussed their invitations with anybody and also declined to do so with the Breast Care Sister. Twenty-nine per cent of women had to wait longer than 15 minutes (longer than expected for nine of them). Most women (69 per cent) described the staff as the best aspect of their visit, 55 per cent found nothing unpleasant and 96 per cent said they would attend again. Others mentioned waiting, the dressing gowns and the mammography as unpleasant. The audit allowed the service to be improved and provided invaluable feedback to staff working in a stressful environment. Similar audits will be repeated when screening other Leicestershire areas.

Published
1991
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. EUROCARE-3: survival of cancer patients diagnosed 1990–94—results and commentary

Author

Sant, M., Aareleid, T., Berrino, F., Bielska Lasota, M., Carli, P. M., Faivre, J., Grosclaude, P., Hédelin, G., Matsuda, T., Møller, H., Möller, T., Verdecchia, A., Capocaccia, R., Gatta, G., Micheli, A., Santaquilani, M., Roazzi, P., Lisi, D., Oberaigner, W., Jechova, M., Rousarova, M., Storm, H. H., Hakulinen, T., Tron, I., Le Gall, E., Launoy, G., Macé Lesech, J., Chaplain, G., Danzon, A., Tretarre, B., Colonna, M., Lacour, B., Raverdy, N., Berger, C., Freycon, F., Estève, J., Kaatsch, P., Ziegler, H., Hölzel, D., Schubert Fritschle, G., Tryggvadottir, L., Allemani, C., Baili, P., Ciccolallo, L., Taussig, E., Carrani, E., De Angelis, R., Hartley, S., Tavilla, A., Valente, F., Ferretti, S., Crosignani, P., Contiero, P., Conti, E., Vercelli, M., Pannelli, F., Vitarelli, S., Mosciatti, P., Federico, Massimo, Artioli, M. E., PONZ DE LEON, Maurizio, Benatti, Piero, De Lisi, V., Serventi, L., Zanetti, R., Patriarca, S., Magnani, C., Pastore, G., Gafà, Aw, L., Tumino, R., Falcini, F., Budroni, M., Paci, E., Crocetti, E., Zambon, P., Guzzinati, S., Dalmas, M., Langmak, F., Andersen, A., Rachtan, J., Wronkowski, Z., Zwierko, M., Pinheiro, P. S., Pleško, I., Obsitníková, A., Pompe Kirn, V., Izarzugaza, I., Martinez Garcia, C., Garau, I., Navarro, C., Chirlaque, M. D., Ardanaz, E., Moreno, C., Galceran, J., Torrella, A., Peris Bonet, R., Barlow, L., Jundt, G., Lutz, J. M., Usel, M., Coebergr, J. W. W., Van Der Does Van Den Berg, A., Visser, O., Godward, S., Coleman, M. P., Williams, E. M. I., Forman, D., Quinn, M. J., Roche, M., Edwards, S., Stiller, C., Verne, J., Bell, J., Botha, J. L., Lawrence, G., Black, R., Brewster, D., and Steward, J. A.

Subjects
Male, Urologic Neoplasms, medicine.medical_specialty, Lung Neoplasms, Skin Neoplasms, Genital Neoplasms, Female, Breast Neoplasms, Digestive System Neoplasms, Sex Factors, Case mix index, Testicular Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Internal medicine, Epidemiology, medicine, Humans, Registries, Thyroid Neoplasms, cancer survival, Survival rate, Testicular cancer, Survival analysis, Brain Neoplasms, business.industry, Prostatic Neoplasms, Cancer, Hematology, medicine.disease, Survival Analysis, Age-standardised relative survival, Cancer survival, Europe, International comparison, Population-based cancer registries, Lymphoma, Surgery, Europe, Survival Rate, Oncology, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Hematologic Neoplasms, Female, business
Abstract

EUROCARE-3 analysed the survival of 1815584 adult cancer patients diagnosed from 1990 to 1994 in 22 European countries. The results are reported in tables, one per cancer site, coded according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 classification. The main findings of the tables are summarised and commented on in this article. For most solid cancers, wide differences in survival between different European populations were found, as also reported by EUROCARE-1 and EUROCARE-2, despite a remarkable (10%) overall increase in cancer survival from 1985 to 1994. Survival was highest in northern Europe (Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland), and fairly good in central-southern Europe (France, Switzerland, Austria and Spain). Survival was particularly low in eastern Europe, low in Denmark and the UK, and fairly low in Portugal and Malta. The mix of tumour stage at diagnosis explains much of the survival differences for cancers of the digestive tract, female reproductive system, breast, thyroid, and also skin melanoma. For tumours of the urinary tract and prostate, the differences were explained mainly by differences in diagnostic criteria and procedures. The case mix by anatomic subsite largely explains differences in survival for head and neck cancers. For oesophagus, pancreas, liver and brain cancer, with poor prognoses, survival differences were limited. Tumours, for which highly effective treatments are available, such as testicular cancer, Hodgkin's lymphoma and some haematological malignancies, had fairly uniform survival across Europe. Survival for all tumours combined (an indicator of the overall cancer care performance of a nation's health system) was better in young than old patients, and better in women than men. The affluence of countries influenced overall cancer survival through the availability of adequate diagnostic and treatment procedures, and screening programmes.

Published
2003

7. EUROCARE-3 summary: cancer survival in Europe at the end of the 20th century

Author

Coleman, M. P., Gatta, G., Verdecchia, A., Estève, J., Sant, M., Storm, H., Allemani, C., Ciccolallo, L., Santaquilani, M., Berrino, F., Oberaigner, W., Jechova, M., Rousarova, M., Storm, H. H., Aareleid, T., Hakulinen, T., Hédelin, G., Tron, I., Le Gall, E., Launoy, G., Macé Lesec'h, J., Faivre, J., Chaplain, G., Carl, P. M., Danzon, A., Tretarre, B., Colonna, M., Lacour, B., Raverdy, N., Berger, C., Freycon, F., Grosclaude, P., Estèv, Z, Kaatsch, P., Ziegler, H., Hölzel, D., Schubert Fritschle, G., Tryggvadottir, L., Baili, P., Micheli, A., Taussig, E., Capocaccia, R., Carrani, E., De Angelis, R., Hartley, S., Roazzi, P., Tavilla, A., Valente, F., Ferretti, S., Crosignani, P., Contiero, P., Conti, E., Vercelli, M., Pannelli, F., Vitarelli, S., Mosciatti, P., Federico, Massimo, Artioli, M. E., PONZ DE LEON, Maurizio, Benatti, Piero, De Lisi, V., Serventi, L., Zanetti, R., Patriarca, S., Magnani, C., Pastore, G., Gafà, L., Tumino, R., Falcini, F., Budroni, M., Paci, E., Crocetti, E., Zambon, P. Guzzinati S., Dalmas, M., Langmark, F., Andersen, A., Rachtan, J., Bielska Lasota, M., Wronkowski, Z., Zwierko, M., Pinheiro, P. S., Pleško, I., Obsitníková, A., Pompe Kirn, V., Izarzugaza, I., Martinez Garcia, C., Garau, I., Navarro, C., Chirlaque, M. D., Ardanaz, E., Moreno, C., Galceran, J., Torrella, A., Peris Bonet, R., Barlow, L., Möller, T., Jundt, G. Lutz J. M., Usel, M., Coebergh, J. W. W., Van Der Does Van Den Berg, A., Visser, O., Godward, S., Williams, E. M. I., Forman, D., Quinn, M. J., Roche, M., Edwards, S., Stiller, C., Verne, J., Møller, H., Bell, J., Botha, J. L., Lawrence, G., Black, R., Brewster, D., Steward, J. A., Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive - UMR 5558 (LBBE), Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 (UCBL), and Université de Lyon-Université de Lyon-Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (Inria)-VetAgro Sup - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche en alimentation, santé animale, sciences agronomiques et de l'environnement (VAS)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)

Subjects
Male, [SDV.OT]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Other [q-bio.OT], Pathology, medicine.medical_specialty, population-based cancer registries, Lung Neoplasms, Skin Neoplasms, Population, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Breast Neoplasms, Disease, Sex Factors, Testicular Neoplasms, Stomach Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Epidemiology, Health care, Humans, Medicine, Registries, cancer survival, Child, education, Survival rate, Survival analysis, education.field_of_study, business.industry, Age Factors, international comparison, Prostatic Neoplasms, Cancer, Hematology, medicine.disease, Survival Analysis, Cancer survival, Europe, Survival Rate, Oncology, Colonic Neoplasms, Female, Observational study, business, Demography
Abstract

Summary International differences and trends in cancer survival withinEurope are larger than can reasonably be accounted for by arte-fact, bias or chance. The geographical patterns and trends in sur-vival are often broadly consistent with geographical differences ortrends in the type of cancer, diagnostic investigations or overallinvestment in health care, and for several major cancers, support-ing evidence is available from population-based studies of clinicalinformation. Incomplete ascertainment of cancer cases, particu-larly of long-term survivors, may contribute to some regional andinternational differences in survival, however, and more system-atic information on completeness is required. We may concludethat large international differences in survival do exist for manycancers, but we should be cautious in drawing quantitative orcausal conclusions from observational survival data.We do not yet have a fully satisfactory interpretation of thesedifferences, but we have few alternatives to this type of study if weare to understand the determinants of improved outcome for allcancer patients, and to enable better planning of their health care.The EUROCARE Working Group has developed several strategiesto disentangle the various possible explanations [73]. These includefurther development of high-resolution studies to examine theimpact on survival differences of disease stage, staging techniquesand treatment; and further development of mathematical modelsof cure. Extension of systematic international survival compari-sons to other regions of the world, such as Australia, Canada, Japanand the USA, is also in progress (the CONCORD study) [22].Oncologists and epidemiologists may provide insight into thegeographic differences and trends in survival reported by thisstudy, and may suggest further lines of enquiry. Do we need morerefined studies of survival to monitor progress against cancer andto plan future cancer care? Will such analyses help us quantify theeffect of new treatments arising from recent progress in the basicsciences and genomics on population cancer survival rates? Sub-stantial human and financial resources are required to improve theoutcome of cancer treatment. Will future investments in cancerservices include matching investment to monitor their impact onsurvival and mortality?Earlier diagnosis and prompt, universal access to optimal treat-ment would be expected to reduce international differences incancer survival in Europe. To achieve this, oncologists and healthcare planners will need better information on the comparativeperformance of their health systems. Population-based cancer reg-istries provide some of the information for such comparisons, buttheir traditional output may no longer be sufficient to evaluate theeffectiveness of health systems, and especially to explain geo-graphical differences in survival. In some countries, their role isalso under threat. Confidentiality constraints recently inhibitedthe collection of cancer registration data in the UK [90], and thelinkage of cancer registrations and deaths is currently illegal inEstonia [91]. Both activities are essential for internationally com-parable survival rates. Legal protection for cancer registrationacross Europe will be required.The mission of cancer registries should be reconsidered, and thepriority shifted from classical descriptive epidemiology and geo-graphical pathology toward more analytical monitoring ofprogress against cancer, including the probability of survival andcure, the burden of cancer prevalence, and the late effects oftherapy. Several European studies of this type have been reportedrecently [3, 36, 9294] and others are in progress. Many cancer–registries are developing closer relationships with cancer clini-cians and general practitioners, and some now systematicallycollect detailed clinical information that was collected eitherirregularly or not at all in the past. These developments willimprove the power of population-based cancer data to explain dif-ferences in cancer survival, and should enhance their relevance toclinical practice.European average survival rates are useful for comparativepurposes, but they should not become the goal for cancer controlprogrammes: the benchmark should always be the highest achiev-able survival rates.The aim of exploring geographic differences in cancer survivalis not to establish international league tables or to excite nationalrivalries, but to estimate the range of survival rates, and to identifyregions or countries in which survival could be improved.

Published
2003

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results