Global inequalities in access to health care are reflected in differences in cancer survival. The CONCORD programme was designed to assess worldwide differences and trends in population-based cancer survival. In this population-based study, we aimed to estimate survival inequalities globally for several subtypes of childhood leukaemia. Cancer registries participating in CONCORD were asked to submit tumour registrations for all children aged 0-14 years who were diagnosed with leukaemia between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2009, and followed up until Dec 31, 2009. Haematological malignancies were defined by morphology codes in the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third revision. We excluded data from registries from which the data were judged to be less reliable, or included only lymphomas, and data from countries in which data for fewer than ten children were available for analysis. We also excluded records because of a missing date of birth, diagnosis, or last known vital status. We estimated 5-year net survival (ie, the probability of surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis, after controlling for deaths from other causes [background mortality]) for children by calendar period of diagnosis (1995-99, 2000-04, and 2005-09), sex, and age at diagnosis (<1, 1-4, 5-9, and 10-14 years, inclusive) using appropriate life tables. We estimated age-standardised net survival for international comparison of survival trends for precursor-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). We analysed data from 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries. During 1995-99, 5-year age-standardised net survival for all lymphoid leukaemias combined ranged from 10·6% (95% CI 3·1-18·2) in the Chinese registries to 86·8% (81·6-92·0) in Austria. International differences in 5-year survival for childhood leukaemia were still large as recently as 2005-09, when age-standardised survival for lymphoid leukaemias ranged from 52·4% (95% CI 42·8-61·9) in Cali, Colombia, to 91·6% (89·5-93·6) in the German registries, and for AML ranged from 33·3% (18·9-47·7) in Bulgaria to 78·2% (72·0-84·3) in German registries. Survival from precursor-cell ALL was very close to that of all lymphoid leukaemias combined, with similar variation. In most countries, survival from AML improved more than survival from ALL between 2000-04 and 2005-09. Survival for each type of leukaemia varied markedly with age: survival was highest for children aged 1-4 and 5-9 years, and lowest for infants (younger than 1 year). There was no systematic difference in survival between boys and girls. Global inequalities in survival from childhood leukaemia have narrowed with time but remain very wide for both ALL and AML. These results provide useful information for health policy makers on the effectiveness of health-care systems and for cancer policy makers to reduce inequalities in childhood cancer survival. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Focus Northern Ireland, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Swiss Re, Swiss Cancer Research foundation, Swiss Cancer League, and the University of Kentucky.

Socio-economic inequalities in mortality are observed at the country level in both North America and Europe. The purpose of this work is to investigate the contribution of specific risk factors to social inequalities in cause-specific mortality using a large multi-country cohort of Europeans. A total of 3,456,689 person/years follow-up of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) was analysed. Educational level of subjects coming from 9 European countries was recorded as proxy for socio-economic status (SES). Cox proportional hazard model's with a step-wise inclusion of explanatory variables were used to explore the association between SES and mortality; a Relative Index of Inequality (RII) was calculated as measure of relative inequality. Total mortality among men with the highest education level is reduced by 43% compared to men with the lowest (HR 0.57, 95% C.I. 0.52–0.61); among women by 29% (HR 0.71, 95% C.I. 0.64–0.78). The risk reduction was attenuated by 7% in men and 3% in women by the introduction of smoking and to a lesser extent (2% in men and 3% in women) by introducing body mass index and additional explanatory variables (alcohol consumption, leisure physical activity, fruit and vegetable intake) (3% in men and 5% in women). Social inequalities were highly statistically significant for all causes of death examined in men. In women, social inequalities were less strong, but statistically significant for all causes of death except for cancer-related mortality and injuries. In this European study, substantial social inequalities in mortality among European men and women which cannot be fully explained away by accounting for known common risk factors for chronic diseases are reported.

Breast cancer survival is reportedly higher in the US than in Europe. The first worldwide study (CONCORD) found wide international differences in age‐standardized survival. The aim of this study is to explain these survival differences. Population‐based data on stage at diagnosis, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow‐up were collected for about 20,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer aged 15–99 years during 1996–98 in 7 US states and 12 European countries. Age‐standardized net survival and the excess hazard of death up to 5 years after diagnosis were estimated by jurisdiction (registry, country, European region), age and stage with flexible parametric models. Breast cancers were generally less advanced in the US than in Europe. Stage also varied less between US states than between European jurisdictions. Early, node‐negative tumors were more frequent in the US (39%) than in Europe (32%), while locally advanced tumors were twice as frequent in Europe (8%), and metastatic tumors of similar frequency (5–6%). Net survival in Northern, Western and Southern Europe (81–84%) was similar to that in the US (84%), but lower in Eastern Europe (69%). For the first 3 years after diagnosis the mean excess hazard was higher in Eastern Europe than elsewhere: the difference was most marked for women aged 70–99 years, and mainly confined to women with locally advanced or metastatic tumors. Differences in breast cancer survival between Europe and the US in the late 1990s were mainly explained by lower survival in Eastern Europe, where low healthcare expenditure may have constrained the quality of treatment.

Ovarian cancers comprise several histologically distinct tumour groups with widely different prognosis. We aimed to describe the worldwide distribution of ovarian cancer histology and to understand what role this may play in international variation in survival. The CONCORD programme is the largest population-based study of global trends in cancer survival. Data on 681,759 women diagnosed during 1995-2009 with cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, peritoneum and retroperitonum in 51 countries were included. We categorised ovarian tumours into six histological groups, and explored the worldwide distribution of histology. During 2005-2009, type II epithelial tumours were the most common. The proportion was much higher in Oceania (73.1%), North America (73.0%) and Europe (72.6%) than in Central and South America (65.7%) and Asia (56.1%). By contrast, type I epithelial tumours were more common in Asia (32.5%), compared with only 19.4% in North America. From 1995 to 2009, the proportion of type II epithelial tumours increased from 68.6% to 71.1%, while the proportion of type I epithelial tumours fell from 23.8% to 21.2%. The proportions of germ cell tumours, sex cord-stromal tumours, other specific non-epithelial tumours and tumours of non-specific morphology all remained stable over time. The distribution of ovarian cancer histology varies widely worldwide. Type I epithelial, germ cell and sex cord-stromal tumours are generally associated with higher survival than type II tumours, so the proportion of these tumours may influence survival estimates for all ovarian cancers combined. The distribution of histological groups should be considered when comparing survival between countries and regions.