Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 II, 4. 1 | informal care for daily survival.~ ~Trends in HLY are not
2 II, 5. 2. 1| longevity and an improved survival of patients with CVD.~The
3 II, 5. 2. 5| one-third to improvements in survival linked to better treatments.
4 II, 5. 2. 7| Contribution of trends in survival and coronary-event rates
5 II, 5. 2. 7| coronary care to improving survival, event rates, and coronary
6 II, 5. 3. 1| population at risk;~ ~- Relative survival: reflects the survival experience
7 II, 5. 3. 1| Relative survival: reflects the survival experience of cancer patients,
8 II, 5. 3. 2| data on cancer incidence, survival (following up incident cases
9 II, 5. 3. 2| registries. While European cancer survival figures are provided by
10 II, 5. 3. 2| ethnic minorities;~- cancer survival for patients living in poor
11 II, 5. 3. 2| both statutory, but cancer survival analysis is illegal.~ ~Lack
12 II, 5. 3. 2| incidence, screening and survival;~· EU-wide standards should
13 II, 5. 3. 2| eurochip/~ ~EUROCARE – Cancer survival in Europe: The EUROCARE
14 II, 5. 3. 2| explain differences in cancer survival rates across Europe. A further
15 II, 5. 3. 3| i.e. incidence, mortality, survival) are presented here subdivided
16 II, 5. 3. 3| the WHO.~- 5-year relative survival for men and women. This
17 II, 5. 3. 3| case of Czech Republic, survival estimates were taken from
18 II, 5. 3. 3| stage-specific estimates of survival by the end of 2008.~ ~Figures
19 II, 5. 3. 3| mortality and 5-year relative survival show European countries
20 II, 5. 3. 3| for several malignancies survival is lower in the elderly
21 II, 5. 3. 3| mortality and relative survival data presented in the following
22 II, 5. 3. 6| 5.3.5 Survival data discussion~ ~EUROCARE
23 II, 5. 3. 6| cancer registries on patients survival in various European countries.
24 II, 5. 3. 6| analysing, and explaining survival trends and country differences
25 II, 5. 3. 6| and country differences in survival. The EUROCARE-3 report presents
26 II, 5. 3. 6| EUROCARE-3 report presents survival data in adult in 1990–94,
27 II, 5. 3. 6| the EUROCARE-4 presents survival data in 1995-1999 and 2000-
28 II, 5. 3. 6| 5.3.5.1 Childhood cancer survival~ ~In EUROCARE, Gatta et
29 II, 5. 3. 6| Gatta et al (2005) analyzed survival in 129,440 children diagnosed
30 II, 5. 3. 6| Sex-and-age-adjusted 5-year survival trends for all childhood
31 II, 5. 3. 6| cancers combined, 5-years survival increased from 65% for diagnoses
32 II, 5. 3. 6| to 75% in 1992 to 1994. Survival improved also for all individual
33 II, 5. 3. 6| average. These improvements in survival can often be possibly related
34 II, 5. 3. 6| 5.3.5.2 Adult cancer survival~ ~Patients diagnosed in
35 II, 5. 3. 6| Patients diagnosed in 1990-1994~Survival for all cancers reflects
36 II, 5. 3. 6| 29 show 5-year relative survival for all malignant cancers
37 II, 5. 3. 6| Women generally had better survival than men. Countries with
38 II, 5. 3. 6| Countries with 5-year relative survival higher then 40% for men
39 II, 5. 3. 6| Denmark and England had lower survival than the other countries
40 II, 5. 3. 6| and women. Lower levels of survival were reported in Eastern
41 II, 5. 3. 6| site-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
42 II, 5. 3. 6| site-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
43 II, 5. 3. 6| into two stomach cancer survival groups both for men and
44 II, 5. 3. 6| 5.3.30). 5-year relative survival was higher in women than
45 II, 5. 3. 6| most countries.~Data on survival trends (not shown) indicate
46 II, 5. 3. 6| moderate improvement in survival attributed to decreased
47 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
48 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
49 II, 5. 3. 6| colorectal cancer relative survival (Figures 5.3.31) was over
50 II, 5. 3. 6| both for men and women. Survival in the UK and Denmark was
51 II, 5. 3. 6| intermediate at around 45%.~Data on survival trends (not shown) indicate
52 II, 5. 3. 6| in Europe 5-year relative survival for colorectal cancer increased
53 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
54 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
55 II, 5. 3. 6| December 1999 B) Women~ ~Survival for lung cancer patients
56 II, 5. 3. 6| age-adjusted 5-year relative survival ~10% in men and women (Figures
57 II, 5. 3. 6| Estimates of 1-year relative survival are ~30% for both sexes (
58 II, 5. 3. 6| data not shown). Data on survival trends (not shown) indicate
59 II, 5. 3. 6| tendency of lung cancer survival improvement in time. 5-year
60 II, 5. 3. 6| year age-adjusted relative survival for the entire Europe increased
61 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
62 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival by sex. Patients diagnosed
63 II, 5. 3. 6| good, with 5-year relative survival (Figure 5.3.33) exceeding
64 II, 5. 3. 6| France, Italy and Switzerland survival was 80%. England, Scotland,
65 II, 5. 3. 6| 5-year age-standardised survival just above 70%. Particularly
66 II, 5. 3. 6| Particularly low breast cancer survival was seen in Eastern Europe (
67 II, 5. 3. 6| Slovenia) with 5-year relative survival rate between 60 and 67% (
68 II, 5. 3. 6| Sant et al, 2003).~Relative survival for breast cancer improved
69 II, 5. 3. 6| Nordic countries, where survival rates were already high
70 II, 5. 3. 6| the range of breast cancer survival rates between the Nordic
71 II, 5. 3. 6| more rapid improvement in survival in the UK, with a gradual
72 II, 5. 3. 6| gradual reduction of the survival deficit relative to other
73 II, 5. 3. 6| Conversely, improvements in survival were less evident in Eastern
74 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival. Patients diagnosed between
75 II, 5. 3. 6| December 1999~ ~5-year relative survival for cervical cancer was
76 II, 5. 3. 6| 34) (Sant et al, 2003). Survival has improved steadily in
77 II, 5. 3. 6| showed). Even though the survival of women with cervical cancer
78 II, 5. 3. 6| which screening has failed, survival in these countries is still
79 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival. Patients diagnosed between
80 II, 5. 3. 6| overall European relative survival for prostate cancer 5 years
81 II, 5. 3. 6| 5.3.35). 5-year relative survival rates for prostate cancer
82 II, 5. 3. 6| Iceland had the highest survival ( 75%), while the Czech Republic,
83 II, 5. 3. 6| Wales had particularly low survival (<55%) (Sant et al, 2003).
84 II, 5. 3. 6| European 5-year relative survival increased from 55% in the
85 II, 5. 3. 6| in 1992–1994. Increased survival with time was observed in
86 II, 5. 3. 6| Poland and Slovakia where survival actually decreased. Exceptional
87 II, 5. 3. 6| increases in 5-year relative survival for prostate cancer were
88 II, 5. 3. 6| from 43% to 68%). The low survival in Denmark and the UK occurred
89 II, 5. 3. 6| countries with the highest survival had high incidence levels (
90 II, 5. 3. 6| age-standardized 5-year relative survival. Patients diagnosed between
91 II, 5. 3. 6| Age-adjusted 5-year relative survival for colorectal (European
92 II, 5. 3. 6| Eastern Europe. All-cancer survival correlated with total national
93 II, 5. 3. 6| UK had lower all-cancer survival than countries with similar
94 II, 5. 3. 6| Finland had high all-cancer survival, but moderate TNEH. Data
95 II, 5. 3. 6| 94 and 1995–99 showed a survival increase for colorectal
96 II, 5. 3. 6| breast cancers.~Increases in survival and decreases in geographic
97 II, 5. 3. 6| services in countries with poor survival, might indicate better cancer
98 II, 5. 3. 6| Verdecchia et al (2007) analysed survival data for patients diagnosed
99 II, 5. 3. 6| 5-year period relative survival for patients diagnosed in
100 II, 5. 3. 6| age-adjusted 5-year period survival improved for patients diagnosed
101 II, 5. 3. 6| European mean 5-year relative survival was 79% for female breast
102 II, 5. 3. 6| and 11% for lung cancer. Survival for patients diagnosed in
103 II, 5. 3. 6| the highest improvement in survival for major cancer sites during
104 II, 5. 3. 7| and treatment, improving survival and quality of life for
105 II, 5. 3. 7| differences and trends in cancer survival within Europe are way too
106 II, 5. 3. 7| geographical patterns and trends in survival are often broadly consistent
107 II, 5. 3. 7| Estimating the range of survival rates allows the identification
108 II, 5. 3. 7| regions or countries in which survival could be improved. There
109 II, 5. 3. 7| evidence that international survival differences are at least
110 II, 5. 3. 7| become more relevant when survival increases.~ ~European Union
111 II, 5. 3. 8| Moreover, cancer patients survival in Europe has strongly increased
112 II, 5. 3. 8| and with the percentage of survival. In Europe we can estimate
113 II, 5. 3. 9| EUROCARE Working group (2007): Survival for eight major cancers
114 II, 5. 3. 9| EUROCARE-3 summary. Cancer survival in Europe at the end of
115 II, 5. 3. 9| 2005): Childhood Cancer Survival Trends in Europe: A EUROCARE
116 II, 5. 3. 9| Life expectancy and cancer survival in the EUROCARE-3 cancer
117 II, 5. 3. 9| Group (2003): EUROCARE-3: survival of cancer patients diagnosed
118 II, 5. 3. 9| Working Group. Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000–02 period
119 II, 5. 4. 1| restored to safeguard patients' survival. Symptoms rapidly developing
120 II, 5. 5. 3| cohort, the probability of survival at 10, 20 and 40 years after
121 II, 5. 5. 3| Gudmundsson G (1998): Long-term survival of people with unprovoked
122 II, 5. 5. 3| Trenite DGA, et al (2002): Survival of patients with epilepsy:
123 II, 5. 5. 3| assessments and increased survival. Prevalence and incidence
124 II, 5. 5. 3| MS mortality rates and survival time in Europe~Data on MS
125 II, 5. 5. 3| general population. Mean survival time after onset range from
126 II, 5. 5. 3| and subsequent increased survival time after MS onset will
127 II, 5. 5. 3| Koch-Henriksen N, Hyllested K (1994): Survival of patients with multiple
128 II, 5. 5. 3| Stenager E (2004): Trends in survival and cause of death in Damish
129 II, 5. 5. 3| Koch-Henriksen H (2006): Survival and mortality rates among
130 II, 5. 5. 3| the benefit of improved survival since the advent of newer
131 II, 5. 5. 3| et al, 1999). The 5-year survival rate in a cohort of 179
132 II, 5. 5. 3| was 72%, while the 10y survival rate was 42% and the 15
133 II, 5. 5. 3| was 42% and the 15 year survival rate was 23%. Risk of death
134 II, 5. 5. 3| After 4 years, increasing survival benefit again progressively
135 II, 5. 5. 3| 1993): Levodopa therapy and survival in idiopathic Parkinson’
136 II, 5. 6. 3| not race, may also affect survival.~ ~Economic impact~ ~The
137 II, 5. 6. 6| Population-based study of survival after osteoporotic fractures.
138 II, 5. 7. 2| prevalence and patient survival. These are published in
139 II, 5. 7. 3| together with improvements in survival of RRT patients (Jager and
140 II, 5. 7. 3| considerable differences in patient survival (van Dijk et al, 2007).
141 II, 5. 7. 3| together with improvements in survival of RRT patients (Jager and
142 II, 5. 7. 3| high. Although the better survival of transplant recipients
143 II, 5. 7. 3| due to selection bias, the survival of RRT patients could be
144 II, 5. 7. 4| quality of health care and by survival from so-called competing
145 II, 5. 7. 6| and in the improvement of survival and quality of life of those
146 II, 5. 7. 6| below the demand. As patient survival and quality of life are
147 II, 5. 8. 3| have a negative effect on survival. In the WHO Large Analysis
148 II, 5. 12. 7| simulated controls: 5-year survival. Multi-centre group. J Hepatol
149 II, 6. 3. 6| disease is fatal, with a mean survival of about 14 months. The
150 II, 9. 1. 1| D (1999): Prediction of survival for preterm births by weight
151 II, 9. 1. 1| et al (2002): Neonatal survival rates in 860 singleton live
152 II, 9. 1. 2| most common outcome, infant survival is high, and surgery is
153 II, 9. 1. 2| the outcome in terms of survival and long-term morbidity,
154 II, 9. 1. 2| evidence for example that survival of babies with Transposition
155 II, 9. 1. 2| notifications in order to ascertain survival c) greater accuracy and
156 II, 9. 1. 2| child and family in terms of survival, morbidity, quality of life
157 II, 9. 1. 2| Queisser-Luft A (2007): "Survival and Health in Liveborn Infants
158 II, 9. 3. 1| earlier and die earlier (lower survival) from the majority of cancer
159 II, 9. 3. 1| that men also have lower survival rates for cancer (Verdecchia
160 II, 9. 3. 1| incidence, mortality and survival data of different cancer
161 II, 9. 3. 1| heart disease and improve survival in older patients (European
162 II, 9. 3. 1| equally, show no difference in survival rates (UNAIDS et al, 2004).~ ~
163 II, 9. 3. 1| 2007). "Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period
164 II, 9. 3. 1| study on cancer patients’ survival and care~Euro-REVES~International
165 II, 9. 3. 2| now have a 50% chance of survival (Effer et al, 2002; Draper
166 II, 9. 3. 2| D (1999): Prediction of survival for preterm births by weight
167 II, 9. 3. 2| et al (2002): Neonatal survival rates in 860 singleton live
168 II, 9. 4. 3| with stroke had a short survival time; however, recent evidence
169 II, 9. 4. 3| recent evidence suggests that survival may be much longer. Prevalence,
170 II, 9. 5. 1| older ages, women have clear survival advantages compared to men (
171 III, 10. 3. 3| disease is fatal, with a mean survival of about 14 months. The
172 III, 10. 4. 2| studies, bacterial growth and survival studies, dose response studies,
173 III, 10. 5. 1| regular users showing higher survival rates and better mental
174 III, 10. 5. 1| exhibitions as determinant of survival: a Swedish fourteen-year
175 III, 10. 5. 2| cancer centre have poorer survival after diagnosis for prostate
176 III, 10. 5. 2| 2000): Rural factors and survival from cancer: analysis of
177 III, 10. 6. 1| death and poorer chances of survival after a heart attack, even
178 IV, 11. 1. 5| there were breast cancer survival, mammography and cervical
179 IV, 11. 1. 6| that have been used include survival rates, waiting times, patient
180 IV, 11. 1. 6| experiences and longer-term survival rates for myocardial infarction.
181 IV, 11. 6. 4| expressed as measurements of survival or waiting time (e.g. in
182 IV, 12. 2 | differences and trends in cancer survival within Europe are larger
183 IV, 12. 2 | geographical patterns and trends in survival are often broadly consistent
184 IV, 12. 2 | evidence that international survival differences are at least
185 Key, Ap5. 0. 0| sulphur~sunlight~surfactants~survival~susceptibility~sustainability~
