Skip header and navigation

4 records – page 1 of 1.

A comparison of relative and cause-specific survival by cancer site, age and time since diagnosis.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature103078
Source
Int J Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;135(1):196-203
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jul-1-2014
Author
Katrine Damgaard Skyrud
Freddie Bray
Bjørn Møller
Author Affiliation
Department of Registration Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research, Oslo, Norway.
Source
Int J Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;135(1):196-203
Date
Jul-1-2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cause of Death
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasms - diagnosis - mortality - pathology
Norway
Registries
Survival Analysis
Abstract
Relative survival (RS) estimates are widely used by cancer registries, mainly because they do not rely on the well-documented deficiencies of cause of death information. The aim of our study was to compare 5-year cause-specific survival (CSS) estimates and 5-year RS estimates for different cancer sites by age and time since diagnosis, and discuss possible reasons for observed differences. Using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, we identified 200,008 patients diagnosed with cancer at one of the 48 sites included in this analysis during the period 1996-2005, and followed them up until the end of 2010. CSS estimates were calculated (i) considering cause of death to be the cancer that was originally diagnosed and (ii) considering the cause of death to be a cancer within the same organ system. For most cancer sites the difference between CSS and RS estimates was small (
PubMed ID
24302538 View in PubMed
Less detail

How Many Deaths from Colorectal Cancer Can Be Prevented by 2030? A Scenario-Based Quantification of Risk Factor Modification, Screening, and Treatment in Norway.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature291607
Source
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Sep; 26(9):1420-1426
Publication Type
Historical Article
Journal Article
Date
Sep-2017
Author
Katrine Damgaard Skyrud
Tor Åge Myklebust
Freddie Bray
Morten Tandberg Eriksen
Thomas de Lange
Inger Kristin Larsen
Bjørn Møller
Author Affiliation
Department of Registration, Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research, Majorstuen, Oslo, Norway. Katrine.Damgaard.Skyrud@kreftregisteret.no.
Source
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Sep; 26(9):1420-1426
Date
Sep-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Historical Article
Journal Article
Keywords
Colorectal Neoplasms - epidemiology - prevention & control - therapy
Female
History, 21st Century
Humans
Male
Mass Screening
Norway - epidemiology
Risk factors
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer mortality can be reduced through risk factor modification (adherence to lifestyle recommendations), screening, and improved treatment. This study estimated the potential of these three strategies to modify colorectal cancer mortality rates in Norway.Methods: The potential reduction in colorectal cancer mortality due to risk factor modification was estimated using the software Prevent, assuming that 50% of the population in Norway-who do not adhere to the various recommendations concerning prevention of smoking, physical activity, body weight, and intake of alcohol, red/processed meat, and fiber-started to follow the recommendations. The impact of screening was quantified assuming implementation of national flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with 50% attendance. The reduction in colorectal cancer mortality due to improved treatment was calculated assuming that 50% of the linear (positive) trend in colorectal cancer survival would continue to persist in future years.Results: Risk factor modification would decrease colorectal cancer mortality by 11% (corresponding to 227 prevented deaths: 142 men, 85 women) by 2030. Screening and improved treatment in Norway would reduce colorectal cancer mortality by 7% (149 prevented deaths) and 12% (268 prevented deaths), respectively, by 2030. Overall, the combined effect of all three strategies would reduce colorectal cancer mortality by 27% (604 prevented deaths) by 2030.Conclusions: Risk factor modification, screening, and treatment all have considerable potential to reduce colorectal cancer mortality by 2030, with the largest potential reduction observed for improved treatment and risk factor modification.Impact: The estimation of these health impact measures provides useful information that can be applied in public health decision-making. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(9); 1420-6. ©2017 AACR.
PubMed ID
28626069 View in PubMed
Less detail

Regional variations in cancer survival: Impact of tumour stage, socioeconomic status, comorbidity and type of treatment in Norway.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature274617
Source
Int J Cancer. 2016 May 1;138(9):2190-200
Publication Type
Article
Date
May-1-2016
Author
Katrine Damgaard Skyrud
Freddie Bray
Morten Tandberg Eriksen
Yngvar Nilssen
Bjørn Møller
Source
Int J Cancer. 2016 May 1;138(9):2190-200
Date
May-1-2016
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Comorbidity
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasms - mortality - pathology - therapy
Norway - epidemiology
Prognosis
Registries
Social Class
Socioeconomic Factors
Abstract
Cancer survival varies by place of residence, but it remains uncertain whether this reflects differences in tumour, patient and treatment characteristics (including tumour stage, indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidity and information on received surgery and radiotherapy) or possibly regional differences in the quality of delivered health care. National population-based data from the Cancer Registry of Norway were used to identify cancer patients diagnosed in 2002-2011 (n = 258,675). We investigated survival from any type of cancer (all cancer sites combined), as well as for the six most common cancers. The effect of adjusting for prognostic factors on regional variations in cancer survival was examined by calculating the mean deviation, defined by the mean absolute deviation of the relative excess risks across health services regions. For prostate cancer, the mean deviation across regions was 1.78 when adjusting for age and sex only, but decreased to 1.27 after further adjustment for tumour stage. For breast cancer, the corresponding mean deviations were 1.34 and 1.27. Additional adjustment for other prognostic factors did not materially change the regional variation in any of the other sites. Adjustment for tumour stage explained most of the regional variations in prostate cancer survival, but had little impact for other sites. Unexplained regional variations after adjusting for tumour stage, SES indicators, comorbidity and type of treatment in Norway may be related to regional inequalities in the quality of cancer care.
PubMed ID
26679150 View in PubMed
Less detail

The value of Facebook in nation-wide hospital quality assessment: a national mixed-methods study in Norway.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature309286
Source
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 03; 29(3):217-224
Publication Type
Journal Article
Date
03-2020
Author
Oyvind Bjertnaes
Hilde Hestad Iversen
Katrine Damgaard Skyrud
Kirsten Danielsen
Author Affiliation
Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt, Oslo, Norway oyvindandresen.bjertnaes@fhi.no.
Source
BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 03; 29(3):217-224
Date
03-2020
Language
English
Publication Type
Journal Article
Keywords
Correlation of Data
Hospitals
Humans
Norway
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient satisfaction
Quality Assurance, Health Care - methods
Quality Indicators, Health Care - statistics & numerical data
Social Media - statistics & numerical data
Surveys and Questionnaires
Abstract
The objective was to assess the possibility of using a combination of official and unofficial Facebook ratings and comments as a basis for nation-wide hospital quality assessments in Norway.
All hospitals from a national cross-sectional patient experience survey in 2015 were matched with corresponding Facebook ratings. Facebook ratings were correlated with both case-mix adjusted and unadjusted patient-reported experience scores, with separate analysis for hospitals with official site ratings and hospitals with unofficial site ratings. Facebook ratings were also correlated with patient-reported incident scores, hospital size, 30-day mortality and 30-day readmission. Facebook comments from 20 randomly selected hospitals were analysed, contrasting the content and sentiments of official versus unofficial Facebook pages.
Facebook ratings were significantly correlated with most patient-reported indicators, with the highest correlations relating to unadjusted scores for organisation (0.60, p
PubMed ID
31446423 View in PubMed
Less detail