Background: The American Cancer Society (ACS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) collaborate annually to provide information on cancer rates and trends in the United States. This year’s report updates statistics on the 15 most common cancers in the fi ve major racial/ethnic populations in the United States for 1992 – 2002 and features populationbased trends in cancer treatment. Methods: The NCI, the CDC, and the NAACCR provided information on cancer cases, and the CDC provided information on cancer deaths. Reported incidence and death rates were age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population, annual percent change in rates for fi xed intervals was estimated by linear regression, and annual percent change in trends was estimated with joinpoint regression analysis. Population-based treatment data were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries, SEER-Medicare linked databases, and NCI Patterns of Care/Quality of Care studies. Results: Among men, the incidence rates for all cancer sites combined were stable from 1995 through 2002. Among women, the incidence rates increased by 0.3% annually from 1987 through 2002. Death rates in men and women combined decreased by 1.1% annually from 1993 through 2002 for all cancer sites combined and also for many of the 15 most common cancers. Among women, lung cancer death rates increased from 1995 through 2002, but lung cancer incidence rates stabilized from 1998 through 2002. Although results of cancer treatment studies suggest that much of contemporary cancer treatment for selected cancers is consistent with evidencebased guidelines, they also point to geographic, racial, economic, and age-related disparities in cancer treatment. Conclusions: Cancer death rates for all cancer sites combined and for many common cancers have declined at the same time as the dissemination of guideline-based treatment into the community has increased, although this progress is not shared equally across all racial and ethnic populations. Data from population-based cancer registries, supplemented by linkage with administrative databases, are an important resource for monitoring the quality of cancer treatment. Use of this cancer surveillance system, along with new developments in medical informatics and electronic medical records, may facilitate monitoring of the translation of basic science and clinical advances to cancer prevention, detection, and uniformly high quality of care in all areas and populations of the United States. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1407 – 27]

/pdf/annual-report-to-the-nation-on-the-status-of-cancer-1975-5e0xrblo8q.pdf

Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2002, Featuring Population-Based Trends in Cancer Treatment

Many doctors, patients, journalists, and politicians alike do not understand what health statistics mean or draw wrong conclusions without noticing. Collective statistical illiteracy refers to the widespread inability to understand the meaning of numbers. For instance, many citizens are unaware that higher survival rates with cancer screening do not imply longer life, or that the statement that mammography screening reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer by 25% in fact means that 1 less woman out of 1,000 will die of the disease. We provide evidence that statistical illiteracy (a) is common to patients, journalists, and physicians; (b) is created by nontransparent framing of information that is sometimes an unintentional result of lack of understanding but can also be a result of intentional efforts to manipulate or persuade people; and (c) can have serious consequences for health. The causes of statistical illiteracy should not be attributed to cognitive biases alone, but to the emotional nature of the doctor-patient relationship and conflicts of interest in the healthcare system. The classic doctor-patient relation is based on (the physician's) paternalism and (the patient's) trust in authority, which make statistical literacy seem unnecessary; so does the traditional combination of determinism (physicians who seek causes, not chances) and the illusion of certainty (patients who seek certainty when there is none). We show that information pamphlets, Web sites, leaflets distributed to doctors by the pharmaceutical industry, and even medical journals often report evidence in nontransparent forms that suggest big benefits of featured interventions and small harms. Without understanding the numbers involved, the public is susceptible to political and commercial manipulation of their anxieties and hopes, which undermines the goals of informed consent and shared decision making. What can be done? We discuss the importance of teaching statistical thinking and transparent representations in primary and secondary education as well as in medical school. Yet this requires familiarizing children early on with the concept of probability and teaching statistical literacy as the art of solving real-world problems rather than applying formulas to toy problems about coins and dice. A major precondition for statistical literacy is transparent risk communication. We recommend using frequency statements instead of single-event probabilities, absolute risks instead of relative risks, mortality rates instead of survival rates, and natural frequencies instead of conditional probabilities. Psychological research on transparent visual and numerical forms of risk communication, as well as training of physicians in their use, is called for. Statistical literacy is a necessary precondition for an educated citizenship in a technological democracy. Understanding risks and asking critical questions can also shape the emotional climate in a society so that hopes and anxieties are no longer as easily manipulated from outside and citizens can develop a better-informed and more relaxed attitude toward their health.

/pdf/helping-doctors-and-patients-make-sense-of-health-statistics-1pvokbc1l2.pdf

Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics

Objective Our goal was to provide health-care providers, patients, and the general public with an assessment of currently available data regarding the use of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Participants The participants included a non-Federal, non-advocate, 14-member panel representing the fields of oncology, radiology, surgery, pathology, statistics, public health, and health policy as well as patient representatives. In addition, 30 experts in medical oncology, radiation oncology, biostatistics, epidemiology, surgical oncology, and clinical trials presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of 1000. Evidence The literature was searched with the use of MEDLINE(TM) for January 1995 through July 2000, and an extensive bibliography of 2230 references was provided to the panel. Experts prepared abstracts for their conference presentations with relevant citations from the literature. Evidence from randomized clinical trials and evidence from prospective studies were given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. Consensus process The panel, answering predefined questions, developed its conclusions based on the evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The panel composed a draft statement, which was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. The draft statement was made available on the World Wide Web immediately after its release at the conference and was updated with the panel's final revisions. The statement is available at http://consensus.nih.gov. Conclusions The panel concludes that decisions regarding adjuvant hormonal therapy should be based on the presence of hormone receptor protein in tumor tissues. Adjuvant hormonal therapy should be offered only to women whose tumors express hormone receptor protein. Because adjuvant polychemotherapy improves survival, it should be recommended to the majority of women with localized breast cancer regardless of lymph node, menopausal, or hormone receptor status. The inclusion of anthracyclines in adjuvant chemotherapy regimens produces a small but statistically significant improvement in survival over non-anthracycline-containing regimens. Available data are currently inconclusive regarding the use of taxanes in adjuvant treatment of lymph node-positive breast cancer. The use of adjuvant dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens in high-risk breast cancer and of taxanes in lymph node-negative breast cancer should be restricted to randomized trials. Ongoing studies evaluating these treatment strategies should be supported to determine if such strategies have a role in adjuvant treatment. Studies to date have included few patients older than 70 years. There is a critical need for trials to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in these women. There is evidence that women with a high risk of locoregional tumor recurrence after mastectomy benefit from postoperative radiotherapy. This high-risk group includes women with four or more positive lymph nodes or an advanced primary cancer. Currently, the role of postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with one to three positive lymph nodes remains uncertain and should be tested in a randomized controlled trial. Individual patients differ in the importance they place on the risks and benefits of adjuvant treatments. Quality of life needs to be evaluated in selected randomized clinical trials to examine the impact of the major acute and long-term side effects of adjuvant treatments, particularly premature menopause, weight gain, mild memory loss, and fatigue. Methods to support shared decision-making between patients and their physicians have been successful in trials; they need to be tailored for diverse populations and should be tested for broader dissemination.

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000.

http://iase-web.org/documents/papers/icots8/ICOTS8_PL3_GIGERENZER.pdf

Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics: towards an evidence-based society

Background In the United States, black and Hispanic white women with breast cancer present with more advanced stages and have poorer survival rates than non-Hispanic whites, whereas Asians and Pacific Islanders do not. However, Asians and Pacific Islanders and Hispanic whites are heterogeneous populations, and few studies have evaluated breast cancer stage, treatments, and mortality rates for subgroups of these populations. Methods Using data from 11 population-based tumor registries that participate in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate the relationship between race and ethnicity and breast cancer stage, treatments, and mortality rates. The cohort of 124 934 women diagnosed as having a first primary invasive breast carcinoma between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1998, included 97 999 non-Hispanic whites, 10 560 blacks, 322 American Indians, 8834 Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 7219 Hispanic whites. Results Relative to non-Hispanic whites, blacks, American Indians, Hawaiians, Indians and Pakistanis, Mexicans, South and Central Americans, and Puerto Ricans had 1.4- to 3.6-fold greater risks of presenting with stage IV breast cancer. Blacks, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans were 20% to 50% more likely to receive or elect a first course of surgical and radiation treatment not meeting the 2000 National Comprehensive Cancer Network standards. In addition, blacks, American Indians, Hawaiians, Vietnamese, Mexicans, South and Central Americans, and Puerto Ricans had 20% to 200% greater risks of mortality after a breast cancer diagnosis. Conclusions Differences in breast cancer stage, treatments, and mortality rates are present by race and ethnicity. Breast cancer survival may be improved by targeting factors, particularly socioeconomic factors, that underlie these differences.

/pdf/differences-in-breast-cancer-stage-treatment-and-survival-by-3m4b7zw0wj.pdf

Gary J. Schwartz

Papers

Treatment of early-stage breast cancer

Effects of acute administration of a prostaglandin E2 analog, trimoprostil, on esophageal motility in man.

Specificity of PGE2 analogs interaction between food intake and antisecretory effect