Search

Abstract Background Major changes in the incidence of oesophageal and gastric cancers have been reported internationally. This study describes recent trends in incidence and survival of subgroups of oesophageal and gastric cancer in England between 1998 and 2007 and considers the implications for cancer services and policy. Methods Data on 133,804 English patients diagnosed with oesophageal and gastric cancer between 1998 and 2007 were extracted from the National Cancer Data Repository. Using information on anatomical site and tumour morphology, data were divided into six groups; upper and middle oesophagus, lower oesophagus, oesophagus with an unspecified anatomical site, cardia, non-cardia stomach, and stomach with an unspecified anatomical site. Age-standardised incidence rates (per 100,000 European standard population) were calculated for each group by year of diagnosis and by socioeconomic deprivation. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results The majority of oesophageal cancers were in the lower third of the oesophagus (58%). Stomach with an unspecified anatomical site was the largest gastric cancer group (53%). The incidence of lower oesophageal cancer increased between 1998 and 2002 and remained stable thereafter. The incidence of cancer of the cardia, non-cardia stomach, and stomach with an unspecified anatomical site declined over the 10 year period. Both lower oesophageal and cardia cancers had a much higher incidence in males compared with females (M:F 4:1). The incidence was also higher in the most deprived quintiles for all six cancer groups. Survival was poor in all sub-groups with 1 year survival ranging from 14.8-40.8% and 5 year survival ranging from 3.7-15.6%. Conclusions An increased focus on prevention and early diagnosis, especially in deprived areas and in males, is required to improve outcomes for these cancers. Improved recording of tumour site, stage and morphology and the evaluation of focused early diagnosis programmes are also needed. The poor long-term survival reinforces the need for early detection and multidisciplinary care.

Abstract Background The collection of ethnicity information as part of cancer datasets is important for planning services and ensuring equal access, and for epidemiological studies. However, ethnicity has generally not been well recorded in cancer registries in the UK. The aim of this study was to determine the completeness of ethnicity coding in the Thames Cancer Registry (TCR) database and within the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data as held by the London Health Observatory, and to investigate factors associated with ethnicity being recorded. Methods Records for 111821 hospital admissions of London residents with a malignant cancer as a primary diagnosis between April 2002 and March 2003 and records for 25581 London residents diagnosed with cancer in 2002 were examined. Data on sex, age, cancer network of residence, deprivation, proportion of non-whites in the local authority population, and site of cancer were available. The proportion of patients in each group with a valid ethnicity code was calculated. In the TCR data proportions were also calculated adjusted for all other variables. Results Ethnicity was recorded for 90661 (81.1%) of the hospital admissions in the HES data and 5796 (22.7%) patients on the TCR database. Patients resident in areas with a higher proportion of non-white residents and the most deprived populations were more likely to have an ethnic code on the TCR database, though this pattern was not seen in the HES data. Adjustment did not materially affect the association between deprivation and ethnicity being recorded in the TCR data. Conclusion There was a large difference in completeness of ethnicity between the data sources. In order to improve the level of recording in TCR data there needs to be better recording of ethnicity in sources TCR data collection staff have access to, or use of information from other sources e.g. electronic data feeds from hospitals or pathology laboratories, or HES data itself supplied directly to TCR. Efforts to collect ethnicity data should be encouraged in all healthcare settings. Future research should explore where the difficulties collecting ethnicity information lie, whether with patients, healthcare professionals or the recording procedure, and how such problems can be overcome.