Five ways to improve international comparisons of cancer survival: lessons learned from ICBP SURVMARK-2

Abstract

Background: Comparisons of population-based cancer survival between countries are important to benchmark the overall effectiveness of cancer management. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) Survmark-2 study aims to compare survival in seven high-income countries across eight cancer sites and explore reasons for the observed differences. A critical aspect in ensuring comparability in the reported survival estimates are similarities in practice across cancer registries. While ICBP Survmark-2 has shown these differences are unlikely to explain the observed differences in cancer-specific survival between countries, it is important to keep in mind potential biases linked to registry practice and understand their likely impact. Methods: Based on experiences gained within ICBP Survmark-2, we have developed a set of recommendations that seek to optimally harmonise cancer registry datasets to improve future benchmarking exercises. Results: Our recommendations stem from considering the impact on cancer survival estimates in five key areas: (1) the completeness of the registry and the availability of registration sources; (2) the inclusion of death certification as a source of identifying cases; (3) the specification of the date of incidence; (4) the approach to handling multiple primary tumours and (5) the quality of linkage of cases to the deaths register. Conclusion: These recommendations seek to improve comparability whilst maintaining the opportunity to understand and act upon international variations in outcomes among cancer patients.