Innovations in health care and mortality trends from five cancers in seven European countries between 1970 and 2005
- 361 Downloads
Although the contribution of health care to survival from cancer has been studied extensively, much less is known about its contribution to population health. We examine how medical innovations have influenced trends in cause-specific mortality at the national level.
Based on literature reviews, we selected six innovations with proven effectiveness against cervical cancer, Hodgkin’s disease, breast cancer, testicular cancer, and leukaemia. With data on the timing of innovations and cause-specific mortality (1970–2005) from seven European countries we identified associations between innovations and favourable changes in mortality.
For none of the five specific cancers, sufficient evidence for an association between introduction of innovations and a positive change in mortality could be found. The highest association was found between the introduction of Tamoxifen and breast cancer mortality.
The lack of evidence of health care effectiveness may be due to gradual improvements in treatment, to effects limited to certain age groups or cancer subtypes, and to contemporaneous changes in cancer incidence. Research on the impact of health care innovations on population health is limited by unreliable data on their introduction.
KeywordsCancer Mortality Health care innovation Outcome assessment (health care) Amenable mortality
We thank Walter Holland for his input and valuable advices throughout the project, Esther de Vries for important comments on an earlier version of this paper and Janina Knuth for her help with layout and editing.
Conflict of interest
- Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, Vatten LJ (2011) Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. Br Med J 343. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4411
- Dama E, Pastore G, Mosso ML, Maule MM, Zuccolo L, Magnani C, Merletti F (2006) Time trends and prognostic factors for survival from childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Registry of Piedmont (Italy). Eur J Pediatr 165:240–249. doi: 10.1007/s00431-005-0034-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- de Kok IM, van der Aa MA, van Ballegooijen M, Siesling S, Karim-Kos HE, van Kemenade FJ, Coebergh JW, Netherlands Cancer Registry (2011) Trends in cervical cancer in the Netherlands until 2007: has the bottom been reached? Int J Cancer 128:2174–2181. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25553 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Department of Health and Social Security (1988) Health services management cervical cancer screening [Health Circular HC(88)1]. Department of Health and Social Security, HeywoodGoogle Scholar
- Duffy SW, Tabar L, Olsen AH, Vitak B, Allgood PC, Chen THH, Yen AMF, Smith RA (2010) Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen 17:25–30. doi: 10.1258/jms.2009.009094 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ferlay J, Shin H, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin D (2010) GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 10. International Agency for Research on Cancer, FranceGoogle Scholar
- Forrest P (1986) Breast Cancer Screening. Report to the Health Ministers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by a working group chaired by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest. LondonGoogle Scholar
- Janssen-Heijnen MLG, Louwman WJ, Van de Poll-Franse LV, Coebergh JWW (2005) Van meten naar weten: 50 jaar kankerregistratie. Compr Cancer Cent South, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
- Mackenbach JP, Hoffmann R, Khoshaba B, Plug I, Rey G, Westerling R, Pärna K, Jougla E, Alfonso J, Looman CWN, McKee M (2013) Using ‘amenable mortality’ as indicator of health care effectiveness in international comparisons: results of a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 67:139–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Meerding WJ, Polder JJ, de Hollander AEM, Mackenbach JP (2007) Hoe gezond zijn de zorguitgaven?. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, BilthovenGoogle Scholar
- National Board of Health and Welfare (1986) Screening with Mammography. SOSFS (3)Google Scholar
- Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1975/1982) Mortality statistics, Series DH2, vol 1, 9. Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, London, pp 1–14Google Scholar
- Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CWN, Broeders MJM, Boer R, Hendriks J, Verbeek ALM, de Koning HJ (2003) Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 361:1411–1417. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13132-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Plug I, Hoffmann R, Mackenbach JP (2011) AMIEHS. Avoidable mortality in the European Union: towards better indicators for the effectiveness of health systems. Final report. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam. http://amiehs.lshtm.ac.uk
- Robinson SP, Addada J, Green N, Wong WL, Shaw P, Chakraverty R, Goldstone AH, Macmillan A, Linch DC (2001) Response to short course ESHAP chemotherapy in relapsed and refractory lymphoma. Blood 96:246Google Scholar
- Ryan R, Gross N (1943) The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociol 8:15–24Google Scholar
- UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group (1988) First results on mortality reduction in the UK Trial of Early detection of breast cancer. Lancet 8608(2):411–416Google Scholar
- Zhang B, Su Z, Qiu P (2009) On jump detection in regression curves using local polynomial Kernel estimation. Pak J Stat 25:505–528Google Scholar