Report EUROCHIP-2 Final Report Annex
RATIONALE Comparison of population based data allows to better understand EU inequalities in cancer risk, care and survival. The use of CRs data on cancer care indicators (figure) is optimized if used for national cancer control strategies development and cancer care evaluation.
RATIONALE EUROCARE-3 data for all cancers combined 5-year relative survival (ASRS) compared with survival expected from Total National Expenditure on Health (superimposed curve in the figure) show that some countries perform better than expected from their TNEH level while others perform worse than expected OBJECTIVE Introducing cost in the evaluation of clinical outcome as a mean to reduce inequalities and finding possible solutions for assisting low-income European countries in complying with the highest standards of cancer outcome and taking into account the most updated guidelines of care RATIONALE Incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in Eastern European countries are five times higher than those with the best organised screening programmes OBJECTIVES Promoting organised Cervical Cancer screening in 5 Data for Italy.
Source: I Tumori in Italia (www.tumori.net) RATIONALE In Europe prevalent cases are more than 18 million. All EU countries are experiencing a dramatic increase of prevalent cases so needs for rehabilitation services for cancer patients are increasing too.
OBJECTIVE Deliver a list of indicators able to describe cancer rehabilitation in all EU countries METHOD Discussion among rehabilitation experts and survey on rehabilitation status across Europe. STATUS Final list includes: 1. Total Prevalence and Qualified prevalence 2. Return to work of cancer patients Source: OVERVIEW OF CANCER REGISTRATION PRACTICES ENCR Questionnaire RATIONALE Comparison of population based data allows to better understand EU inequalities in cancer risk, care and survival.
The use of CRs data on cancer care indicators (figure) is optimized if used for national cancer control strategies development and cancer care evaluation. OBJECTIVES Promote cancer registration in Greece and Luxembourg (countries without a CR) and assess whether cancer registries collect well defined variables to determine the indicators identified as closely associated with the observed wide inter-country variation in cancer survival: - “stage at diagnosis” Lithuania Lithuania taking into account the most updated guidelines of care proposed by EUSOMA and SIOP-E.
METHOD Mapping information on the cost-effectiveness of care components used in breast cancer and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) covering screening, diagnosis, pathology, surgery, medical oncology radiotherapy and rehabilitation and accountable for direct costs, to discuss on possible alternatives at same outcomes but lower cost CONCLUSIONS Comparable information on costs and cost effectiveness for the two cancer sites considered across the EU is not sufficiently available MESSAGE Research must be promoted at EU level to ensure that this information is included in the model we use for