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/~ ~EUROCARECancer 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 199094,
 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 19921994. 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 199599 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 200002 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 patientssurvival 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~