cancer-specific data sheet - registri tumori · cancer-specific data sheet 059_069_airtum_2017.indd...

Schede Specifiche per tumore cancer-specific data sheet

4059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 59 26/04/17 10.20

guida alla lettura delle Schede a guide to the cancer-specific data sheets

4

Epidemiol Prev 2017; 41 (2) suppl1. doi: 10.19191/EP17.2S1.P001.017 60 Ulteriori dati disponibili sul sito: www.registri-tumori.it

I TUMORI IN ITALIA RAPPORTO AIRTUM 2016 SOPRAVVIVENZA

This guide is for laymen. The main objective is providing ba-sic knowledge for reading the indicators: for more detailed in-formation please refer to the «Materials and methods» chapter (pp. 205-26).The survival indicators may be interpreted:n from a general prospective (population based), as the pro-portion of patients alive within a certain time interval;n from the patient’s point of view, as the probability of sur-viving the disease for a specific amount of time.The simplest measure is observed survival, generally expressed as a proportion of patients alive after a defined time interval divided by the total number of treated patients. In this case, all deaths which occurred in the interval (both due to the disease under study or to other causes) contribute to the indicator’s computation.

iNterpretatiVe cautioNS of obSerVed SurViValOf course, the cancer patients are at risk of dying from this dis-ease, but also from all other causes that affect the population free of the specific cancer under study. It follows that observed survival cannot be used to make comparisons of the impact of a specific disease among differ-ent populations. In particular, observed survival is necessarily lower among older patients than among younger patients due partly to the effect of higher mortality for other causes among elderly subjects. It follows that a more appropriate measure should take into account only deaths attributable to the cancer under study, excluding non-cancer deaths, known as death for “competing causes”.Two approaches for taking account of competing causes of death are available:n the first one is based on the analysis of a hypothetical (im-aginary) situation where the disease under study is the only cause of death and leading to net survival estimation;n the second one is based on the quantification of both the ac-tual probability of dying from the disease under study and the

Questa guida è indirizzata prevalentemente ai lettori non tecnici. L’obiettivo principale è di fornire gli strumenti in-terpretativi indispensabili per la lettura dei singoli indica-tori: informazioni più dettagliate sono disponibili nel capi-tolo «Materiali e metodi» (pp. 205-26).Le misure di sopravvivenza fornite possono essere lette:n dal punto di vista generale, come la proporzione di pa-zienti che non sono deceduti a causa della malattia in stu-dio, dopo un intervallo di tempo definito;n dal punto di vista individuale, come la probabilità di so-pravvivere alla malattia per un intervallo di tempo. La misura più semplice a nostra disposizione è la sopravvi-venza osservata, espressa genericamente come proporzione di pazienti viventi, dopo un intervallo di tempo definito, sul totale dei pazienti considerati. In questo caso, tutti i decessi avvenuti nell’intervallo (sia quelli dovuti alla pato-logia in studio, sia quelli dovuti ad altre cause) contribui-scono al calcolo dell’indicatore.

limiti iNterpretatiVi della SopraVViVeNza oSSerVataNaturalmente i pazienti con tumore sono esposti al rischio di morire per questa malattia, ma anche per tutte le altre cause che interessano la popolazione non affetta da tumo-re; come effetto immediato si ha, per esempio, che la so-pravvivenza osservata dei pazienti anziani, se confrontata con quella di pazienti più giovani, risulta più bassa verosi-milmente per effetto della maggiore mortalità per altre cause. Ne consegue che la sopravvivenza osservata non pos-sa essere utilizzata per effettuare confronti dell’impatto di una specifica malattia tra popolazioni diverse.E’, quindi, necessario utilizzare indicatori che tengano conto del fatto che un paziente possa morire come conse-guenza della malattia in studio o, eventualmente, per altre cause, dette appunto “cause competitive”. Esistono due approcci che permettono di tener conto della presenza delle cause competitive di morte:

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 60 26/04/17 10.20


I TUMORI IN ITALIA RAPPORTO AIRTUM 2016 SOPRAVVIVENZA GUIDA ALLA LETTURA

actual probability of death for competing risks: this approach is known as crude probability estimation).Net survival represents the probability of surviving after a can-cer diagnosis, by eliminating the distortion arising from the possibility of dying from other causes. This indicator is the best estimate for comparing survival among different populations or different periods of diagnosis: differences in net survival are not attributable to the risk of dying from causes other than cancer; it is, therefore, very important from a public health perspective.

pLEASE NOTE. In the 2011 AIRTUM Report on Survival, net survival was estimated through relative survival. In the pre-sent monograph the Pohar-Perme approach was used instead. In each graph only the defi nition “net survival” is reported.The “crude probability of death” approach allows us to quan-tify the probability of dying from cancer, the probability of dy-ing from other causes, and the probability of surviving within a defi ned time interval. This indicator provides actionable information for both patients and clinicians interested in the actual chances of surviving and dying.

n il primo consiste nel ricondursi alla ipotetica (fi ttizia) situazione in cui la patologia in studio sia l’unica causa di morte e conduce alla stima della sopravvivenza netta;n il secondo consiste nel quantifi care sia la probabilità ef-fettiva di morte per la patologia in studio, sia la probabilità effettiva di morte per cause competitive: questo approccio è defi nito stima della sopravvivenza reale (in inglese crude).La sopravvivenza netta esprime la probabilità di soprav-vivere dopo una diagnosi di tumore eliminando la distor-sione derivante dalla possibilità di morire per altre cause. questo indicatore è una stima ideale se lo scopo è quello di confrontare la sopravvivenza dopo una diagnosi di tumore tra popolazioni o periodi temporali diversi, poiché esclude che le differenze eventualmente riscontrate possano essere attribuite a variazioni del rischio di morire per cause diver-se dal cancro; è, quindi, estremamente rilevante dal punto di vista della sanità pubblica.

NOTA bENE. Nel Rapporto AIRTUM 2011 la sopravvivenza netta era stata stimata attraverso la sopravvivenza relativa. In questo volume è stato utilizzato invece l’approccio di Pohar-Perme, che stima appunto la sopravivenza netta. Nei grafi ci è riportata la sola dizione Net survival – sopravvi-venza netta. La scelta di utilizzare questo nuovo indicatore è stata effettuata perché il metodo di Pohar Perme è robu-sto rispetto a violazioni dell’assunzione di indipendenza tra il rischio di morire per il cancro e il rischio di morire per altre cause. L’approccio della stima della probabilità reale (in inglese cru-de probability) di morte permette di quantifi care la probabi-lità di morire a causa del tumore, la probabilità di morire per altre cause e la probabilità di sopravvivere in un intervallo di tempo defi nito. Questo indicatore fornisce informazioni fruibili sia dal punto di vista dei pazienti e sia dei clinici, che possono essere interessati a conoscere la le probabilità effet-tive di sopravvivere e di morire, sia nella quota attribuibile al cancro sia nella quota attribuibile ad altre cause.

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 61 26/04/17 10.20

maleS & femaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

YEARS AFTER DIAGNOSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

c age-StaNdardized Net SurViVal (%), 2005-2009 pooL of 42 cancer registries (114543 oBserVed cases)

colorectal caNcer

70

83

65


I TUMORI IN ITALIA RAPPORTO AIRTUM 2016 SOPRAVVIVENZA guida alla lettura

IL GRAFIcO DELLA SOpRAVVIVENzA NETTA cUmULATIVA STANDARDIzzATALa sopravvivenza dipende dal tempo trascorso dalla data di diagnosi. Nella pratica ci si riferisce a una misura sintetica di questo andamen-to, chiamata sopravvivenza cumulativa, calcolata a una certa distanza temporale. Se, per esempio, la distanza di nostro interesse corrispon-desse a 5 anni e la sopravvivenza fosse calcolata separatamente anno per anno, la sopravvivenza cumulativa sarebbe interpretabile come probabilità di sopravvivere per almeno 5 anni e, quindi, ottenuta “cumulando” (moltiplicando) le probabilità di sopravvivere il primo anno, il secondo anno, eccetera, fino al quinto anno. L’andamento della sopravvivenza cumulativa è decrescente, generalmente con una forma non dissimile da quella mostrata nel grafico. Si noti che nella pratica, così come in questo volume, quando si fa riferimento a una sopravvivenza calcolata a distanza di tempo dalla diagnosi, si inten-de implicitamente una sopravvivenza cumulativa, specificazione che verrà omessa. Quando si confronta la sopravvivenza di due popolazioni diverse, è possibile che alcune differenze siano spiegate semplicemente da una differente distribuzione per età (le popolazioni più anziane tende-ranno ad avere una prognosi più severa e popolazioni più giovani saranno spesso associate a sopravvivenze più elevate): per questo mo-tivo, al fine di permettere il confronto dei risultati della presente monografia con altri studi, è presentata la sopravvivenza netta stan-dardizzata per età, ovvero calcolata dando un peso standard (defini-to a priori secondo le convenzioni internazionali – vd. «Materiali e metodi», pp. 205-26) alle varie classi di età all’incidenza.

cOmE SI LEGGE qUESTO GRAFIcOLa figura mostra l’andamento della sopravvivenza netta fino a 5 anni dopo la diagnosi dei pazienti con tumore del colon retto diagnostica-to nel periodo 2005-2009, la fonte è il pool dei 42 Registri Tumori italiani. Nell’esempio la sopravvivenza alla fine del primo anno dalla diagnosi è pari all’83%. La sopravvivenza netta alla fine del terzo anno dopo la diagnosi è del 70% mentre, a 5 anni dalla diagnosi, è 65%.

cOmE SI INTERpRETA qUESTO GRAFIcOLa sopravvivenza a 5 anni è molto importante in quanto rappresenta la più comune misura sintetica usata per dare indicazioni sulla pro-gnosi a breve termine.In questo esempio si osserva che alla fine del primo anno l’83% dei pazienti sopravvive al tumore, ovvero si stima che il 17% dei pazien-ti sia deceduto per la causa tumorale in quanto eccede la mortalità osservata nella popolazione generale. Generalmente la curva tende, negli anni successivi, a diminuire la propria pendenza, segno che l’ec-cesso di mortalità si riduce e che la prognosi dei pazienti si avvicina sempre di più alla prognosi della popolazione. Non sempre però l’andamento è così netto, a volte, come per i tu-mori della mammella, la curva non tende ad appiattirsi, segno che la malattia continua a produrre effetti sensibili anche a distanza di tempo dalla diagnosi. In seguito l’introduzione di una grandezza, chiamata sopravvivenza condizionata, aiuterà a descrivere meglio an-che questi fenomeni.

generegender

Sede tumorale cancer site

Pool dei regiStri tumoricancer registry pooL

anni di diagnoSi conSideraticonsidered years of diagnosis

cUmULATIVE NET SURVIVAL GRAphSurvival depends on the time elapsed from the date of diagnosis. A sum-mary measure of net survival is cumulative net survival, which is com-puted after a certain interval from diagnosis. Given a five-year distance from diagnosis and calculating survival separately each year, five-year cumulative net survival can be interpreted as the proportion of patients surviving cancer 5 years after diagnosis and can, therefore, be obtained by “cumulating“ (multiplying) the survival probability for the first year, second year, and so, up to five years. The plot of cumulative net survival is similar to that shown in the figure. Note that, in practice, when refer-ring to survival as a function of time since diagnosis, the term “cumula-tive” is implicit and will be omitted. When comparing survival estimates among different populations, some differences may be simply due to the different age-distribution (older populations show a worse prognosis, young populations show a higher sur-vival proportion): for this reason, in order to allow comparison of results with other studies, age-standardized net survival estimates are presented. Age-standardized estimates are calculated using a standard weight for the various age classes. Weights are a priori defined, according to Interna-tional standards – see «Materials and methods», pp. 205-26).

hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphThe figure shows a plot of net survival up to 5 years after diagnosis for cancer patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2005-2009. The source is the pool of 42 Italian cancer registries. In this example, net sur-vival at the end of the first year after diagnosis was 83%. Net survival at the end of the third year after diagnosis was 70%, while at 5 years after diagnosis it was 65%.

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphNet survival after five years is very important because it is the most com-mon single measure of short-term survival. Net survival after longer peri-ods (mainly 10 years) is useful for measuring long-term survival and will be shown later. In this example, 83% of patients survive cancer the first year, i.e., 17% of the deaths was attributed to cancer since it exceeds the mortality of the general population. Usually, the curve tends to flatten. Sometimes, as in the case of breast cancer, there is no clear decrease in excess mortality (the survival curve does not flatten), indicating that the disease under study continues to cause deaths even long after diagnosis. Another measure, conditional survival, allows us to better describe these cases.

SoPravvivenza netta a 1, 3, 5 anni dalla diagnoSi1, 3, 5 years after diagnosis net surViVaL

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 62 26/04/17 10.20

maleS & femaleS

50 7060 80 90

5-YE

AR

cRU

DE

pRO

bAbI

LITY

OF

DEA

Th (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

cANcER

ALIVE

OThER cAUSES

d crude probabilitY of death (%), 2005-2009 pooL of 42 cancer registries (111893 oBserVed cases)

colorectal caNcer


I TUMORI IN ITALIA RAPPORTO AIRTUM 2016 SOPRAVVIVENZA GUIDA ALLA LETTURA

IL GRAFIcO DELLA pRObAbILITà REALE DI mORTELa necessità di effettuare confronti nel tempo e nello spazio ha reso necessario l’utilizzo della misura precedentemente defi nita della so-pravvivenza netta, che esprime la probabilità di sopravvivere alla pa-tologia in studio nell’ipotetica fi ttizia situazione in cui le altre cause di morte non esistano. Tuttavia pazienti e clinici possono manifestare l’esigenza di acquisire informazioni relative al contesto reale, nel qua-le sia la patologia in studio, sia le altre comorbidità possono agire. Per tale motivo abbiamo ritenuto opportuno introdurre (per la pri-ma volta nelle monografi e AIRTUM) la stima della probabilità reale di morte (in inglese crude probability of death). Sono stimate con-giuntamente la probabilità di morte per la patologia in studio e la probabilità di morte per altre cause (che assieme danno la probabilità di morte osservata) e anche la probabilità di non morire.E’ necessario considerare che il principale determinate della morta-lità generale è l’età: essendo, quindi, il peso della mortalità genera-le estremamente diverso in pazienti con differenti età al momento dell’incidenza, abbiamo deciso di rappresentare la stima della proba-bilità reale di morte in funzione dell’età alla diagnosi.Il riferimento temporale di 5 anni è molto importante poiché rap-presenta la più comune misura sintetica usata per dare indicazioni sulla prognosi a breve termine, quindi abbiamo deciso di fornire, per questo come per altri indicatori, la sola stima a 5 anni dalla diagnosi.

cOmE SI LEGGE qUESTO GRAFIcOLa fi gura mostra l’andamento della probabilità reale di morte per la patologia in studio, la probabilità reale di morte per altre cause e la probabilità di sopravvivere entro 5 anni dalla diagnosi di un tumore del colon retto diagnosticato nel periodo 2005-2009; la fonte è il pool dei 42 Registri Tumori italiani. Nell’esempio, per un paziente di 70 anni alla diagnosi, la probabilità reale di morte per tumore del colonretto è stata pari al 31%, la probabilità reale di morte per altre cause è stata pari al 7% nei 5 anni successivi alla diagnosi.Per la maggioranza dei tumori indagati le stime della probabilità rea-le di morte si riferiscono a pazienti tra 30 e 90 anni di età alla diagno-si. Per alcuni, come il tumore della prostata, le stime riguardano età alla diagnosi comprese tra 40 e 90 anni rilevandosi pochi o nessun caso in età precedenti.

cOmE SI INTERpRETA qUESTO GRAFIcOIn questo grafi co si osserva che probabilità reale di morte per tumore del colon retto (dopo 5 anni dalla diagnosi) è prossima al 40% per i pazienti più giovani, raggiunge valori intorno al 30% tra i sessanten-ni, ed è più elevata tra i pazienti più anziani.

generegender




cRUDE pRObAbILITY GRAphWhen comparing survival estimates among different populations, the net survival indicator is used. This indicator expresses the probability of surviving the specifi c disease, under the hypothetical assumption that other causes of death do not exist. However, patients and clinicians may be interested in the real context, where both the disease under study and other comorbidities have a role.For this reason, estimation of the crude probability of death was included in the present report (for the fi rst time in AIRTUM monographs). Both the probability of dying from the disease under study and the probability of dying from other causes (which together give the observed probability of death) and also the probability of surviving were estimated. The most important determinant of general mortality is age: therefore, since the weight of overall mortality is extremely different in patients with dif-ferent age at diagnosis, the estimates are presented by age at diagnosis.We report only 5-year after diagnosis crude probabilities of death because it is the most common short-term prognostic indicator. hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphThis fi gure shows the crude probability of dying from the disease under study, the crude probability of dying from other causes, and the prob-ability of surviving within 5 years after diagnosis of colorectal cancer; the information source is the pool of 42 Cancer Registries (period of diagnosis: 2005-2009). For example: a patient who is 70 years old at diagnosis has a crude probability of dying from colorectal cancer equal to 31% and a crude probability of dying from other causes equal to 7% within 5 years after diagnosis.For almost all cancers, crude probability estimates are presented for indi-viduals 30-90 years old at diagnosis, except for a few, e.g. prostate cancer, where estimates start from 40 years since before this age the number of cases is too small.

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphIn this graph, the crude probability of dying from colorectal cancer (within 5 years since diagnosis) is almost 40% among younger patients, it reaches 30% or lower among sixty-year-old patients, it is higher among older patients.

Probabilità di SoPravvivere (doPo 5 anni dalla diagnoSi)

proBaBiLity of surViVing (5 years after diagnosis)

0Probabilità di morte Per tumore del colon retto (doPo 5 anni dalla diagnoSi)

proBaBiLity of death froM coLorectaL cancer

(5 years after diagnosis)

Probabilità di morte Per altra cauSa (doPo 5 anni dalla diagnoSi) proBaBiLity of death for other causes (5 years after diagnosis)

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 63 26/04/17 10.20

cancer registry area

NORTh wEST


NORTh EAST


cENTRE


SOUTh

maleS & femaleS

pOOL

m 65% (64-65)

F 65% (64-65)

SOUTh

m 59% (58-60)

F 61% (64-65)

cENTRE

m 67% (66-69)

F 66% (64-67)

NORTh EAST

m 67% (66-68)

F 67% (66-68)NORTh wEST

m 65% (64-66)

F 66% (65-66)

a 5-Year age-StaNdardized Net SurViVal (%) bY geographical area aNd geNder, 2005-2009 pooL of 42 cancer registries (114543 oBserVed cases)

colorectal caNcer



IL GRAFIcO DEI cONFRONTI NAzIONALIIn questo grafico è presentata la sopravvivenza netta standardizzata per età: quanto osservato nelle diverse aree italiane può essere comparato utilizzando questo indicatore, che presenta la probabilità di sopravvivere alla patologia in studio, al netto sia della mortalità per altre cause, sia del possibile effetto della diversa distribuzione per età della popolazione oncologica.

cOmE SI LEGGE qUESTO GRAFIcOLa figura mostra la sopravvivenza netta standardizzata per età a 5 anni dalla diagnosi per ripartizione geografica e per il pool dei Registri Tumori. In questo esempio la sopravvivenza a 5 anni nel Nord-Ovest è pari al 65% per gli uomini (M) e 66% per le donne (F), nel Nord-Est è 67% per entrambi i generi, nel Centro Italia è pari al 67% (M)e 66% (F) e nel Sud al 59% (M) e 61% (F). Mediamente la sopravvivenza a 5 anni riscontrata nel Pool dei Registri Tumori è stata pari al 65% (M, F). Tra parentesi è riportato l’intervallo dei valori della sopravvivenza compatibile con la variazione casuale di ciascuna stima.

cOmE SI INTERpRETA qUESTO GRAFIcOCome noto, la sopravvivenza può dipendere da fattori territoriali: la qualità dell’offerta sanitaria ha un’indubbia influenza sulla sopravvivenza, includendo in essa l’efficacia delle strategie di prevenzione primaria e secondaria nonché, in generale, la qualità del percorso diagnostico-terapeutico. L’analisi della sopravvivenza per area geografica ha quindi lo scopo di fornire una indicazione, seppur sommaria, dell’impatto di questi aspetti, senza dimenticare l’influenza di altri fattori, generalmente diversi a seconda del tipo di tumore, come la prevalenza di alcuni fattori di rischio o di caratteristiche socioeconomiche.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DISTRIbUTION GRAphIn this graph age-standardized net survival is reported: survival in dif-ferent geographic areas can be compared through this indicator that rep-resents the probability of surviving the specific disease excluding the effect of other causes of mortality and the effect of the age distribution of cancer patients.

hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphThis figure shows 5-year age-standardized net survival for the four Italian macroareas and for the pool of Italian cancer registries. In the North-West of Italy 5-year survival was 65% for males (M) and 66% for females (F), in the North-East it was 67% (M, F), in central Italy it was 67% (M) and 66% (F), and in the South it was 59% (M) and 61% (F). Overall, 5-year survival in the pool of Italian cancer registries was 65% (M, F).

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphSurvival may also depend on local factors: survival is definitely influ-enced by the quality of healthcare, including the efficacy of primary and secondary prevention strategies and, in general, the quality of both diag-nosis and treatment. Survival analysis by geographical area is therefore useful to measure some of these aspects, as well as the influence of other cancer-specific factors, such as the prevalence of certain risk factors or socioeconomic disparities. As in the previous graph, confidence intervals (CI) are shown, expressing the uncertainty of the estimate in a range of plausible values . If the confidence intervals do not overlap (e.g., survival in the South and in the AIRTUM Pool), then estimated survival ratios are significantly different.

generegender



intervalli di confidenza al 95%95% confidence interVaLs


059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 64 26/04/17 10.20

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UpS

NET SURVIVAL (%)

maleS & femaleS

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

mALES

FEmALES

b 5-Year Net SurViVal (%) bY age aNd geNder 2005-2009 pooL of 42 cancer registries (114543 oBserVed cases, M+f)

colorectal caNcer

69

70

67

55

68

71

73

67

52

70



IL GRAFIcO DELLA SOpRAVVIVENzA NETTA pER ETàLa sopravvivenza per tumore dipende dall’età: per mostrare questo effetto la sopravvivenza netta a 5 anni è quindi stata calcolata separatamente per classi di età alla diagnosi per maschi e femmine.

cOmE SI LEGGE qUESTO GRAFIcOIn figura è riportata la sopravvivenza netta a 5 anni dalla diagnosi dei pazienti con tumore diagnosticato nel periodo 2005-2009; la fonte è il pool dei 42 Registri Tumori italiani. Nell’esempio la sopravvivenza netta a 5 anni dalla diagnosi è stata pari al 70% per i maschi e 68% per le femmine di età compresa tra 15 e 44 anni, al 69% e 71% rispettivamente nella fascia 45-54 anni, al 70% e 73% nella fascia 55-64 anni, al 67% in entrambi i sessi nella fascia 65-74 anni e al 55% e 52% per i soggetti con età tra 75 e 99 anni.

cOmE SI INTERpRETA qUESTO GRAFIcOL’effetto dell’età è spesso molto importante e la comparazione della sopravvivenza per fascia di età alla diagnosi esprime una sintesi di molti effetti che generalmente si manifestano con un incremento più o meno graduale della probabilità di morte per tumore all’aumento dell’età del paziente. Questi effetti sono legati, prima di tutto, allo stato generale del paziente e, di riflesso, alle possibilità terapeutiche. La presenza di altre condizioni morbose può ovviamente aggravare il decorso della malattia o rendere subottimale il trattamento. Molti altri aspetti influenzano l’andamento della sopravvivenza per età: le campagne di screening di popolazione, per esempio, tendono ad anticipare la diagnosi (e quindi migliorare artificialmente la sopravvivenza) in fasce di età candidate. Per esempio, nelle aree dove è attivo uno screening per i tumori della mammella e del colon retto è atteso un beneficio a favore delle fasce adulte (50-69 anni) che sarà determinato plausibilmente in parte da un artificiale aumento e in parte da un reale effetto benefico.

NET SURVIVAL bY AGECancer survival depends on age; in order to show this, 5-year net sur-vival was plotted by age at diagnosis.

hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphThe figure shows 5-year net survival for cancer patients diagnosed in 2005-2009. The source is the pool of 42 Italian cancer registries. Five-year net survival was 70% for male patients and 68% for female pa-tients aged between 15 and 44 years, 69% and 71% respectively for the 45-54 age group, 70% and 73% for the 55-64 age group, 67% in both sexes for the 65-74 age group and 55% and 52% respectively for patients aged between 75 and 99 years.

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphThe effect of age is often relevant. The pattern of survival by age summa-rizes the effect of increase in the probability of death with an increase in patient age. Differences in survival are related, first of all, to the general condition of the patient and, consequently, to treatment options. Comor-bidities influence prognosis and the probability of receiving suboptimal treatment. The pattern of net survival by age is influenced by many other aspects: population screening programs, for instance, advance the time of diagnosis (therefore improving survival estimates) in the target age groups. Active breast or colorectal cancer screenings are expected to im-prove prognosis of participants (50-69 years).

faScia di età alla diagnoSiage group at diagnosis


generegender




059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 65 26/04/17 10.20

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

maleS & femaleS

HigH

pREcISION OF ThE pOOL ESTImATE

e 5-Year age-StaNdardized Net SurViVal (%) bY regioN, 2005-2009 pooL of 40 cancer registries (111868 oBserVed cases)

loW

58

60

62

64

70

68

66

pOOL

colorectal caNcer

cI 95%

* population coverage 30-40%

cI 99,8%NORTh wESTNORTh EASTcENTRESOUThwith abbreviated region name

TAA LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR



IL FUNNEL pLOT DELLA SOpRAVVIVENzA REGIONALEIn conseguenza del continuo aumento delle aree coperte dai Registri Tumori in Italia, le stime della sopravvivenza netta standardizzata a 5 anni dalla diagnosi sono state presentate anche per singola regione, limitatamente alle 11 regioni italiane in cui la popolazione interes-sata dalla registrazione supera il 40% del totale dei residenti, oltre che per il Piemonte e la Toscana (copertura pari a 28,5% e 33,1% rispettivamente); queste ultime due regioni sono contrassegnate da un asterisco nel grafico.

cOmE SI LEGGE qUESTO GRAFIcOOgni punto del grafico rappresenta una delle 13 regioni ed è collo-cato in corrispondenza del livello stimato della sopravvivenza netta (asse verticale) e del livello di precisione che caratterizza la stima (asse orizzontale). La precisione della stima, tecnicamente definita come l’inverso della varianza della sopravvivenza netta, assume valori piccoli per le regio-ni in cui la numerosità della popolazione interessata da registrazione nel periodo 2005-2009 è ridotta (es: Sardegna); assume valori più elevati per le regioni in cui la popolazione interessata dalla registra-zione è più numerosa (es: Lombardia). La precisione dipende anche dalla letalità della malattia.La linea nera orizzontale rappresenta la sopravvivenza netta del POOL AIRTUM.Le linee di controllo blu e rosse definiscono i limiti entro cui le stime regionali potrebbero collocarsi, sotto l’assunzione di omogeneità con la stima del POOL, discostandosi da essa per solo effetto del caso. Le linee di controllo sono più larghe nella parte sinistra del grafico (dove si collocano regioni per le quali la stima è basata su un ridotto numero di casi e quindi è meno precisa) e più strette verso la parte destra. La probabilità che una regione si collochi all’esterno delle linee rosse, sotto l’assunzione di omogeneità con la stima del POOL è pari allo 0,2%. La probabilità che una regione si collochi all’esterno delle li-nee blu è pari al 5%.

cOmE SI INTERpRETA qUESTO GRAFIcOSe in tutte le regioni italiane analizzate, la sopravvivenza netta del tu-more del colon retto, a 5 anni dalla diagnosi, fosse omogenea il 5% dei valori stimati potrebbe collocarsi all’esterno delle linee blu e lo 0,2% all’esterno delle linee rosse per il solo effetto del caso. In considerazione di questa probabilità molto bassa è possibile affermare che le regioni con valori esterni alle linee rosse siano caratterizzate da una sopravvi-venza netta più bassa (se collocati nella parte inferiore del grafico), o eventualmente più elevata (se collocati nella parte superiore del grafi-co), rispetto alla media nazionale. La sopravvivenza netta riportata nel grafico è standardizzata per età. Per questo l’eterogeneità delle stime regionali non può essere attribuita alla diversa distribuzione dell’età alla diagnosi nelle casistiche delle varie regioni. Molti altri fattori, di-rettamente o indirettamente collegati alla sopravvivenza (vd. capitolo «Confronti internazionali», pp. 44-58), possono determinare differen-ze di sopravvivenza. La loro considerazione deve orientare le verifiche e stimolare la ricerca delle cause delle differenze tra le stime regionali mostrate in questi grafici.

FUNNEL pLOT OF REGIONAL SURVIVAL ESTImATESAs a result of the continuous increase in the number of areas covered by cancer registries, the 5-year age-standardized net survival estimates can be presented by region. Only 11 Italian regions with coverage higher than 40% were analysed, as well as Piedmont and Tuscany (coverage of 28.5% and 33.1%, respectively); the latter two regions are marked with an aster-isk in the graph.

hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphEach point on the graph represents a region and corresponds to the net survival estimate (vertical axis) and the precision level (horizontal axis).The accuracy of the estimate, technically defined as the inverse of the vari-ance, is smaller for regions with a small number of residents living in areas covered by cancer registries during the 2005-2009 period (e.g., Sardinia); it is higher for regions with a large number of residents living in areas covered by cancer registries (e.g., Lombardy). The accuracy also depends on the lethality of the disease. The horizontal black line represents net survival for the AIRTUM pool. The blue and red control lines define the limits within which regional estimates may be placed, under the assumption that they are homogeneous with the POOL estimate, departing from it only by chance. The control lines are wider in the left part of the graph (where the regions with a low number of cases are located) and narrower to the right. Under the assumption of homogeneity with the POOL, the probability that a region lies outside the red lines is 0.2%. The probability that a region lies outside the blue lines is 5%.

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphIf in all analysed Italian regions 5-year net survival for colorectal cancer were homogeneous, 5% of the estimated values would lie outside the blue lines and 0.2% of them would lie outside the red lines, only due to chance. As this probability is very low, we can assess that values outside the red lines identify regions with a lower net survival compared with the national average (if they are at the bottom of the graph), or with a higher survival (if they are at the top of the graph). The net survival estimates are age-standardized. For this reason, the differences between regional estimates may not be attributed to differences in the age-distribution. Many of the other factors, directly or indirectly related to survival (See the chapter «International Comparisons», pp. 44-58), can determine differences in survival.

generegender



Pool dei regiStri tumoricancer registry pooL AbbREVIAzIONI

aBBreViationscaM: campania eMr: emilia romagna fVg: friuli Venezia giulia Lig: LiguriaLoM: Lombardiapie: piemontepug: puglia sar: sardegna sic: siciliataa: trentino alto adigetos: toscanaVen: VenetouMB: umbria

PreciSione baSSa: Stima meno Stabile, baSata Su PocHi caSi

Low precision: estiMates Based on a Low nuMBer of cases

PreciSione elevata: Stima Più Stabile, baSata Su caSiStica numeroSahigh precision: estiMates Based on Many cases

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 66 26/04/17 10.20

maleS & femaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER YEAR AFTER 5 YEARS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100NORTh wEST

pOOL

NORTh EAST

cENTRE

SOUTh

f coNditioNal 5-Year age-StaNdardized Net SurViVal after SurViViNg 1, 5 YearS (%) pooL of 26 cancer registries (95524 oBserVed cases)

colorectal caNcer

93 95 93 92 90

77 78 7771

77



GRAFIcO DELLA SOpRAVVIVENzA cONDIzIONATALa sopravvivenza condizionata esprime la probabilità di sopravvive-re ulteriormente alla malattia, essendo sopravvissuto per un periodo prefissato. Nel grafico sono presentate due sopravvivenze condizio-nate: la sopravvivenza netta a 5 anni condizionata a essere sopravvis-suto un anno dal momento della diagnosi, e la sopravvivenza netta a 5 anni condizionata ad esser sopravvissuto 5 anni. In pratica queste due misure riflettono la probabilità di sopravvivere alla malattia al-tri 5 anni, essendo sopravvissuto rispettivamente almeno un anno e almeno 5 anni.

cOmE SI LEGGE qUESTO GRAFIcONell’esempio si osserva come la probabilità di sopravvivere ulteriori 5 anni per chi è sopravvissuto almeno un anno è pari al 77-78% per tutte le ripartizioni geografiche, escluso il Sud dove risulta pari al 71%. La probabilità di sopravvivere ulteriori 5 anni per chi è sopravvissuto almeno cinque anni è pari in media al 93% (barra del pool).

cOmE SI INTERpRETA qUESTO GRAFIcOCome già osservato gli eccessi di mortalità dopo il primo anno ten-dono generalmente, ma non sempre, a contrarsi ed avvicinarsi lo zero. Ne consegue che la sopravvivenza condizionata a 5 anni dopo un anno dalla diagnosi e, soprattutto, dopo 5 anni dalla diagnosi siano più favorevoli della sopravvivenza netta calcolata al momento della diagnosi. Il raggiungimento e il mantenimento di una sopravvivenza netta cu-mulata sostanzialmente invariata nel tempo indica che il gruppo dei pazienti in esame ha acquisito un rischio di decesso comparabile alla popolazione generale (che, si ricorda, è teoricamente priva del tumo-re). Questa condizione, se mantenuta per un ragionevole intervallo di tempo dalla diagnosi, segnala la possibile uscita di parte di alcuni pazienti dalla condizione di malattia tumorale o, in altre parole, il raggiungimento della guarigione. Usando la sopravvivenza condizio-nata, questa condizione potrebbe essere raggiunta, quando il valore della stessa approssimasse il 100%.

cONDITIONAL SURVIVAL GRAphConditional survival expresses the probability of surviving for an ad-ditional amount of time once the person has survived a given amount of time. In practice, we present two types of conditional survival: con-ditional 5-year net survival after having survived 1 year, conditional 5-year net survival after having survived 5 years. These two measures are the probability of surviving the disease an additional 5 years after having survived at least one year and 5 years, respectively.

hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphThe figure shows that the probability of surviving an additional 5 years for patients who have already survived at least one year is 77-78% for for all macroareas except the North-West, where it is 71%.The probability of surviving an additional 5 years for patients who have survived at least five years is 93% for the AIRTUM pool.

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphAs mentioned before, the excess mortality curve after the first year will generally, although not always, flatten out and approach zero. It fol-lows that 5-year conditional survival after one year of diagnosis, and especially after 5 years of diagnosis, is higher than net survival computed from the date of diagnosis.When constant cumulative net survival is reached and maintained over time, this indicates that the patient group has the same risk of death as the general population (which is theoretically free of cancer). This condition, if maintained after a reasonable number of years from di-agnosis, indicates that a fraction of the patient group has escaped the disease conditions or, in other words, has been successfully cured. Using conditional survival, this condition is reached if 5-year net survival ap-proaches 100%.

generegender



SoPravvivenza a 5 anni condizionata all'eSSere SoPravviSSuti 1 anno

fiVe-year surViVaL conditioned on haVing surViVed 1 year

SoPravvivenza a 5 anni condizionata all'eSSere SoPravviSSuti 5 anni fiVe-year surViVaL conditioned on haVing surViVed 5 years

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 67 26/04/17 10.20

GENERAL pOpULATIONcANcER

9040 50 60 70 80

maleS & femaleS

AGE

GRO

UpS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

g life eXpectaNcY pooL of 18 cancer registries (95029 oBserVed cases)

colorectal caNcer



GRAFIcO DELLA SpERANzA DI VITAPer illustrare l’impatto che una diagnosi di tumore ha sulle persone che ne sono affette è presentato un grafico che mette a confronto l’aspettativa di vita della popolazione oncologica in studio e l’aspet-tativa di vita della popolazione generale utilizzata come proxy della popolazione delle persone non ammalate di tumore.Questi dati mostrano la speranza di vita dei pazienti che oggi affron-tano la diagnosi, considerato il contesto socio-assistenziale attuale. Si tratta quindi di previsioni a lungo termine. E’ naturalmente possibile che un’eventuale futura introduzione di trattamenti in grado di modi-ficare significativamente la prognosi dei tumori, anche in stadio avan-zato, dia origine ad un incremento della speranza di vita stimata oggi.Per garantire la stabilità del modello utilizzato nella procedura di sti-ma, l’indicatore riguardante la speranza di vita è presentato per i casi con 40 o più anni alla diagnosi, ad eccezione dei tumori del testicolo in cui si sono considerati i casi con 30 o più anni poiché una parte rilevante di casi interessa i giovani adulti. Anche in questo caso, è necessario considerare che la speranza di vita è calcolata a partire dalla sopravvivenza dei pazienti oncologici e dalla mortalità della popolazione generale, entrambe fortemente correlate all’età. Per questo abbiamo ritenuto informativo rappresentare l’an-damento delle stime della speranza di vita nei pazienti oncologici e nella popolazione generale in funzione dell’età.

cOmE SI LEGGE IL GRAFIcOLa figura mostra l’andamento della speranza di vita per la patologia in studio in funzione dell’età alla diagnosi. Nell’esempio, un indivi-duo di 40 anni con una diagnosi di tumore del colon retto ha un’a-spettativa di vita di 30 anni circa contro i 46 di una persona non affetta da tumore; se la diagnosi di questo tumore viene fatta a 70 anni l’aspettativa di vita è pari a 11 anni, mentre quella in assenza della diagnosi sarebbe stata pari a 16 anni.

cOmE SI INTERpRETA IL GRAFIcOIn termini assoluti la speranza di vita dei pazienti con un tumore del colon retto si riduce di 16 anni se la malattia è diagnosticata all’età di 40 anni e di 5 anni se diagnosticata a 70 anni. In termini relativi, si può osservare che mediamente per le età considerate sino a quelle più avanzate, la speranza di vita di un paziente oncologico è di circa un ter-zo inferiore alla speranza di vita di una persona non affetta da tumore. Questo è coerente con quanto mostrato nel grafico della sopravvivenza netta per fascia di età, nel quale si osservano sopravvivenze omogenee tra le varie classi di età, fatta eccezione per l’ultima fascia.

LIFE ExpEcTANcY GRAphIn this graph the life expectancy of cancer patients and the life expectancy of the general population are compared. The life expectancy of the general population is used as proxy of the life expectancy of the population with no cancer diagnosis. These data show the life expectancy of patients with a cancer diagnosis, considering the current socio-economic conditions: we are therefore dealing with long-term predictions. Life expectancy may increase if new treatments are available.In order to ensure the stability of the model in the estimation procedure, the indicator is shown only for cases 40+years old at diagnosis, with the exception of testicular cancer, for which 30+ year-old patients are considered.Life expectancy is calculated on the basis of cancer patients’ survival and on the basis of general population mortality, both strongly related to age. For this reason, life expectancy is presented as a function of age.

hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphThis figure shows the life expectancy trend depending on age at diagnosis. In the example, a 40-year-old subject with a colorectal cancer diagnosis has a life expectancy of 30 years, compared to 46 years for people not suffering from cancer. Instead, a 70-year-old subject with a colorectal cancer diagnosis has a life expectancy of 11 years, compared to 16 years for people not suffering from cancer.

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphIn absolute terms, the life expectancy for colorectal cancer patients is low-ered by 16 years if the disease occurs at the age of 40, and 5 years if it occurs at age 70. In relative terms, life expectancy remains proportionally about one-third lower than the life expectancy of a person not suffering from cancer for patients in this range of age. This is consistent with the graph of net survival by age group, where homogeneous survival estimates among the different age groups are shown (except for the older group).

generegender

Sede tumorale cancer site Pool dei regiStri tumori

cancer registries pooL

aSPettativa di vita di un Soggetto della PoPolazione generale all’età xLife expectancy for suBject froM generaL popuLation at age x


aSPettativa di vita di un Paziente con tumore del colon retto diagnoSticato all’età xLife expectancy for a cancer patient at age x at diagnosis

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 68 26/04/17 10.20

h time treNd of 5-, 10-Year age-StaNdardized Net SurViVal (%) pooL of 17 cancer registries

maleS & femaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

cALENDAR YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5 YEARS AFTER DIAGNOSIS10 YEARS AFTER DIAGNOSIS

colorectal caNcer≤

6266

5256



GRAFIcO DELL’ANDAmENTO DELLA SOpRAVVIVENzA NETTAUn altro aspetto di notevole impatto sulla sopravvivenza è quello temporale, nel corso degli anni sono migliorate le tecniche diagnosti-che e quelle terapeutiche e di conseguenza la sopravvivenza ne bene-ficia anche in modo sensibile per alcuni tumori. I dati a disposizione consentono di osservare la sopravvivenza netta a 5 e 10 anni dalla diagnosi a partire dalla metà degli anni Novanta anni per 17 Registri Tumori. Per questi Registri, con un approccio definito ibrido (vd. «Materiali e Metodi», pp. 205-26), è stato possibile proiettare le sti-me di sopravvivenza in periodi non ancora osservabili (per esempio, la sopravvivenza a 10 anni dei tumori diagnosticati nel 2009-2011).

cOmE SI LEGGE IL GRAFIcONell’esempio si osserva come l’andamento della sopravvivenza netta a 5 e 10 anni dalla diagnosi sia in aumento pressoché costante. Si stima che, per i pazienti diagnosticati negli anni 2009-2011, la so-pravvivenza netta sarà del 66% a 5 anni dalla diagnosi e del 62% a 10 anni dalla diagnosi.

cOmE SI INTERpRETA IL GRAFIcOL’andamento della sopravvivenza indica l’impatto dell’evoluzione delle potenzialità terapeutiche e diagnostiche. Il bilanciamento tra questi due aspetti è dipendente dal tipo di neoplasia considerata; in generale, comunque, è lecito aspettarsi incrementi graduali della so-pravvivenza, per le neoplasie a prognosi non severa e magari aumen-ti relativi importanti per le neoplasie a peggior prognosi. Esistono taluni casi in cui gli andamenti però sono fortemente condizionali dall’anticipazione diagnostica legata in particolare agli screening or-ganizzati. Per alcuni tumori, come quelli della prostata e della ti-roide, l’andamento della sopravvivenza è fortemente condizionato dall’introduzione di tecniche diagnostiche che hanno aumentato in modo drammatico l’incidenza di tumori piccoli e piccolissimi, alcuni dei quali, probabilmente, non si sarebbero mai manifestati nel corso della vita del paziente. Ovviamente questi ultimi aspetti causano difficoltà nell’interpretazione degli andamenti.

TImE TREND OF NET SURVIVALAnalysis of survival time trends is important: over the past years, diag-nostic and therapeutic techniques have improved and survival conse-quently increased for certain cancers. Five- and ten-year survival trends since the mid-90s were analysed for 17 cancer registries. Thanks to what is known as the hybrid approach (see Materials and Methods chapter, pp. 205-26) still un-observable survival was estimated (for example, 10-year survival of patients diagnosed in 2009-2011).

hOw TO READ ThIS GRAphThe graph shows a steadily increasing trend for 5- and 10-year net sur-vival. During the 2009-2011 period 5-year net survival was 66% and 10-year net survival was 62%.

hOw TO INTERpRET ThIS GRAphThe time trends mainly indicate the impact of improvement in diagnos-tic and therapeutic procedures. The weight of these two aspects depends on the cancer under study. In general, however, we expect gradual in-creases in survival, at least for cancer with more favourable prognosis. In some cases, the reported trends are influenced by preventive policies, such as screening programs. For some cancers, i.e., prostate and thyroid cancers, the pattern of survival is strongly biased by the introduction of diagnostic techniques that caused an increased incidence of substantially indolent cancers that are not likely to ever become symptomatic during a patient’s lifetime. Obviously, these aspects make interpretation of time trends difficult.

generegender

Sede tumorale cancer site Pool dei regiStri tumori

cancer registry pooL

SoPravvivenza Stimata a 5 e 10 anni5- and 10-year estiMated surViVaL

SoPravvivenza netta a 5 e 10 anni5- and 10-year net surViVaL

059_069_AIRTUM_2017.indd 69 26/04/17 10.20

50AGE AT diAGnosis

MALEs FEMALEs

36 16


I TUMORI IN ITALIA RAPPORTO AIRTUM 2016 SOPRAVVIVENZA schede specifiche per tumore

Tumore della TesTa e del colloHead and neck cancer

summary MALEs & FEMALEs, pEriod oF diAgnosis: 2005-2009

5 years AFtEr diAgnosis

57%

conditionEd on hAving survivEd 1 yEAr AFtEr diAgnosis

69%

conditionEd on hAving survivEd 5 yEArs AFtEr diAgnosis

82%

neT survival condiTional 5-year neT survival

7 percent points higher in 15 years

1 year AFtEr diAgnosis

80%


63%


57%

diAGnosisdiAGnosis

57%0 2 41 3 5

80%0 1

82%0 2 41 3 5

57%0 2 41 3 5

69%0 2 41 3 5

63%0 21 3

liFe eXPecTancy aT a Given aGe oF diaGnosis5-year neT survival by Gender

15

21 yEArs Lost

8

8 yEArs Lost

cAncEr

gEnErAL popuLAtion

57%

58%

MALEs

FEMALEs

cancer reGISTrY area

north WEst


north EAst


cEntrE


southnorth WEst

M 57% (56-59)

F 59% (57-62)

cEntrE

M 57% (53-60)

F 54% (49-60)

north EAst

M 56% (55-58)

F 59% (56-61)

south

M 56% (54-58)

F 57% (54-61)

pooL

M 57% (56-58)

F 58% (57-60)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

ups

nEt survivAL (%)

males & Femalesmales & Females

b 5-year neT survival (%) by aGe and Gender, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 cancer reGISTrIeS (25259 OBSerVed caSeS)

a 5-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%) by GeoGraPHical area and Gender, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 cancer reGISTrIeS (25259 OBSerVed caSeS)

Head and neck cancerHead and neck cancer

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

50AGE AT diAGnosis 70AGE AT

diAGnosis

36 16no signiFicAntdiFFErEncE in cancer survival

5-year neT survival - GeoGraPHical comParisons

reGions

ABovE thE nAtionAL MEAn

BELoW thE nAtionAL MEAn

Without dAtA

Around thE nAtionAL MEAn

south

M 56%

F 57%

cEntrE

M 57%

F 54%

north EAst

M 56%

F 59%

north WEst

M 57%

F 59%

no SIGnIFIcanT diFFErEncEs in cancer survival across itALy

5-year neT survival - by reGion

Source: graph eSource: graph a

67

58

60

57

51

75

70

62

60

45

070_081_AIRTUM_SCHEDE_funnel.indd 70 26/04/17 10.21



gEnErAL popuLAtioncAncEr

9040 50 60 70 80

H Time Trend oF 5-, 10-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%) POOL OF 17 cancer reGISTrIeS

males & FemalesHead and neck cancer

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

cALEndAr yEAr oF diAgnosis

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

G liFe eXPecTancy POOL OF 18 cancer reGISTrIeS (21954 OBSerVed caSeS)

Head and neck cancer

yEA

rs

AgE At diAgnosis

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

d crude ProbabiliTy oF deaTH (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 cancer reGISTrIeS (24872 OBSerVed caSeS)


30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-yE

Ar

cru

dE

pro

BABi

Lity

oF

dEA

th (%

)

AgE At diAgnosis

100

80

60

40

20

0

males & Females

c aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 cancer reGISTrIeS (25259 OBSerVed caSeS)


0 1 2 3 4 5

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

yEArs AFtEr diAgnosis

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

F condiTional 5-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival aFTer survivinG 1, 5 years (%) POOL OF 26 cancer reGISTrIeS (21463 OBSerVed caSeS)


5-yE

Ar

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

AFtEr 1 yEAr AFtEr 5 yEArs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

males & Females

e 5-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%) by reGion, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 cancer reGISTrIeS (24699 OBSerVed caSeS)


HiGH

5-yE

Ar

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

prEcision oF thE pooL EstiMAtE

0

50

55

60

65

cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs

north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south

pooL

5 yEArs AFtEr diAgnosis10 yEArs AFtEr diAgnosis

63

80

57

TAA

LOM

LIG VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

5158

40

48

ci 95%


ci 99,8%north WEstnorth EAstcEntrEsouthwith abbreviated region name 82

8679

85 84

69 69 69 6871


males

males

males

males

males

males



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

CALENDAR YEAR OF DIAGNOSIS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0


0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR AFTER 5 YEARS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs

north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south









HiGH


LoW

5-yE

Ar

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

45

50

55

60

65

TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

63

80

57

68 68 6970

65

8083

7782 82

50

39

58

46

pooL

ci 95%


ci 99,8%north WEstnorth EAstcEntrEsouthwith abbreviated region name


Females

Females

Females

Females

Females

Females


schede specifiche per tumore

9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PRECISION OF THE POOL ESTIMATE

cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs

north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south



Head and neck cancer Head and neck cancer









AFtEr 1 yEAr AFtEr 5 yEArs


LoW HiGH

5-yE

Ar

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

30

50

40

60

70

80

pooL

64

80

58

TAA LOMLIG

VEN

EMRFVGPIE*

UMB TOS*

CAM

PUG SICSAR

8791

8387 88

74 7171 72

80

5361

41

53

ci 95%






50AGE AT diAGnosis

MALEs FEMALEs

36 16



north WEst


north EAst


cEntrE


southnorth WEst

63% (58-68)

cEntrE

66% (58-74)

north EAst

66% (60-71)

south

60% (54-65)

pooL

63%(60-66)

males & Females

a 5-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%) by GeoGraPHical area, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 cancer reGISTrIeS (1707 OBSerVed caSeS)



63%


81%


80%




83%


69%


63%

diAGnosisdiAGnosis

63%0 2 41 3 5

83%0 1

80%0 2 41 3 5

63%0 2 41 3 5

81%0 2 41 3 5

69%0 21 3


22

14 yEArs Lost

10

6 yEArs Lost

cAncEr

gEnErAL popuLAtion

7050 AGE AT diAGnosis

AGE AT diAGnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

ups

nEt survivAL (%)

males & Females


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

salivary Gland cancersalivary Gland cancer

Tumore delle GHiandole salivariSaLIVarY GLand cancer

36 16

WoMEn survive longer than men

59%

70%


reGions



Without dAtA


south

60%

cEntrE

66%

north EAst

66%

north WEst

63%

In the north and cEntrE of Italy cancer survival is higher than in the south



86

64

68

55

46

94

79

76

73

52



9040 50 60 70 80

males & Females

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

males & Females

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

males & Females

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

males & Females

HiGH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs

north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south










salivary Gland cancer salivary Gland cancer




some bars are not available due to the low number of cases

83

6963

20

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

ci 95%



LOM

LIG

VEN EMR

FVG

PIE*UMB

TOS*CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

pooL

80

92

71

100

8189

7477

74

5966

47

56




50AGE AT diAGnosis

MALEs FEMALEs

36 16


north WEst


north EAst


cEntrE


southnorth WEst

14% (13-16)

cEntrE

14% (10-20)

north EAst

14% (12-15)

south

11% (8-13)

pooL

13% (12-14)

males & Females

a 5-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%) by GeoGraPHical area, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 cancer reGISTrIeS (5502 OBSerVed caSeS)



13%


29%


76%



41%


18%


13%

diAGnosisdiAGnosis

13%0 2 41 3 5

41%0 1

76%0 2 41 3 5

13%0 2 41 3 5

29%0 2 41 3 5

18%0 21 3


5

31 yEArs Lost

cAncEr

gEnErAL popuLAtion


AGE AT diAGnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

ups

nEt survivAL (%)

males & Females


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

oesoPHaGus cancer oesoPHaGus cancer

Tumore dell’esoFaGoOeSOPHaGuS cancer


36 16

13 yEArs Lost

3WoMEn survive longer than men

12%

17%


reGions



Without dAtA


south

11%

cEntrE

14%

north EAst

14%

north WEst

14%




21

20

15

11

6

12

30

21

19

6




9040 50 60 70 80

males & Females

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

males & Females

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

males & Females

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs

north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south






oesoPHaGus canceroesoPHaGus cancer



H Time Trend oF 5-, 10-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%) POOL OF 17 cancer reGISTrIeS 5 yEArs AFtEr diAgnosis

10 yEArs AFtEr diAgnosis

AFtEr 1 yEAr AFtEr 5 yEArsLoW HiGH

5-yE

Ar

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)


20

10


ci 95%



0

30

41

1813

LOMLIG VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

CAM

SIC

SAR

76

29 27 30

77 76

1611

128

pooL


UMB




50AGE AT diAGnosis

36 16

MALEs FEMALEs


north WEst


north EAst


cEntrE


southnorth WEst

M 31% (29-32)

F 36% (34-38)

cEntrE

M 32% (29-34)

F 38% (35-41)

north EAst

M 33% (31-34)

F 34% (32-36)

south

M 28% (26-29)

F 27% (26-29)

pooL

M 31% (30-31)

F 34% (33-35)

a 5-year aGe-sTandardiZed neT survival (%) by GeoGraPHical area and Gender, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 cancer reGISTrIeS (35217 OBSerVed caSeS)



32%


53%


90%


no progress in 15 years


56%


37%


32%

diAGnosisdiAGnosis

32%0 2 41 3 5

56%0 1

90%0 2 41 3 5

32%0 2 41 3 5

53%0 2 41 3 5

37%0 21 3


13

23 yEArs Lost

6

10 yEArs Lost

cAncEr

gEnErAL popuLAtion


AGE AT diAGnosisWoMEn

survive longer than men

31%

34%

MALEs

FEMALEs

Tumore dello sTomacoSTOmacH cancer

males & FemalessTomacH cancer

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

ups

nEt survivAL (%)

males & Females


sTomacH cancer

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

36 16


reGions



Without dAtA


south

M 28%

F 27%

cEntrE

M 32%

F 38%

north EAst

M 33%

F 34%

north WEst

M 31%

F 36%




41

39

35

31

21

38

37

40

37

23




9040 50 60 70 80


males & Females

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

males & Females

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

males & Females

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

males & Females

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs

north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south







AFtEr 5 yEArsAFtEr 1 yEAr

27,5

25,0

30,0

HiGHLoW

40,0

37,5

35,0

32,5 pooL

sTomacH cancersTomacH cancer

sTomacH cancer sTomacH cancer


ci 95%




56

3732

TAA

LOM

LIG

VENEMRFVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

90 89 9286 87

53 5357

4853

3229

3228


males

males

males

males

males

males



9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HiGH


cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs

north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south








5-yE

Ar

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

40.0

37.5

35.0

32.5

30.0

27.5

25.0

22.5

sTomacH cancer sTomacH cancer





36

55

31

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*CAM

PUG

SICSAR

ci 95%



52 52 5254

49

9185

94 90 88

3027

3129

pooL


Females

Females

Females

Females

Females

Females



9040 50 60 70 80


stomach cancer

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

stomach cancer

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

stomach cancer

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

stomach cancer

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

stomach cancer


0

100

LoW

stomach cancer

HiGH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


north WEst

pooL

north EAst

cEntrE

south


5-yE

Ar

nEt

su

rviv

AL

(%)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90






25

30

35

40

45

50

20

cAncEr

ALivE

othEr cAusEs


ci 95%



55 5561

46

9093 91

8284

pooL

38

57

34

TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMBTOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

55

3136 34

31




CANCER REGISTRY AREA

NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

NET SURVIVAL (%)

MALES & FEMALESMALES & FEMALES

MALEs FEMALEs

POOL

51%(49-53)CENTRE

53% (46-60)

sOUTH

43% (38-47)

NORTH EAsT

56%(52-59)

NORTH WEsT

51% (47-54)

A 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (2582 ObSERvEd CASES)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPs

B 5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL (%) BY AGE AND GENDER, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (2582 ObSERvEd CASES)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

SUmmARY MALEs & FEMALEs, PERiOd OF diAGNOsis: 2005-2009

5 YEARS AFTER diAGNOsis

51%

CONdiTiONEd ON HAviNG sURvivEd 1 yEAR AFTER diAGNOsis

71%

CONdiTiONEd ON HAviNG sURvivEd 5 yEARs AFTER diAGNOsis

86%

NET SURVIVAL CONDITIONAL 5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL


1 YEAR AFTER diAGNOsis

71%


57%


51%

diagnosisdiagnosis

51%0 2 41 3 5

71%0 1

86%0 2 41 3 5

51%0 2 41 3 5

71%0 2 41 3 5

57%0 21 3

LIFE EXPECTANCY AT A GIVEN AGE OF DIAGNOSIS5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL BY GENDER

17

19 yEARs LOsT

9

7 yEARs LOsT

CANCER

GENERAL POPULATiON

70agE aT diagnosis50agE aT

diagnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16

TUmORE DELL’INTESTINO TENUESmALL INTESTINE CANCER

SmALL INTESTINE CANCERSmALL INTESTINE CANCER

52%

50%

NO siGNiFiCANTdiFFERENCE in cancer survival

5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL - GEOGRAPHICAL COmPARISONS

REGIONS

ABOvE THE NATiONAL MEAN

BELOW THE NATiONAL MEAN

WiTHOUT dATA

AROUNd THE NATiONAL MEAN

sOUTH

43%

CENTRE

53%

NORTH EAsT

56%

NORTH WEsT

51%

In the NORTH EAsT of Italy cancer survival tends to be higher than in the other areas

5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL - BY REGION

Source: graph ESource: graph A

65

63

49

34

66

72

60

53

27

75




GENERAL POPULATiONCANCER

9040 50 60 70 80

H TImE TREND OF 5-, 10-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) POOL OF 17 CANCER REGISTRIES

mALES & FEmALES

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

mALES & FEmALES

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

mALES & FEmALES

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

mALES & FEmALES

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

mALES & FEmALES

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

mALES & FEmALES

HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CANCER

ALivE

OTHER CAUsEs

NORTH WEsT

POOL

NORTH EAsT

CENTRE

sOUTH

5 yEARs AFTER diAGNOsis10 yEARs AFTER diAGNOsis

AFTER 1 yEAR AFTER 5 yEARs

G LIFE EXPECTANCY POOL OF 18 CANCER REGISTRIES (2034 ObSERvEd CASES)

E 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY REGION, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (2525 ObSERvEd CASES)

F CONDITIONAL 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL AFTER SURVIVING 1, 5 YEARS (%) POOL OF 26 CANCER REGISTRIES (2009 ObSERvEd CASES)

D CRUDE PROBABILITY OF DEATH (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (2523 ObSERvEd CASES)

C AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (2582 ObSERvEd CASES)

POOL

20

80

70

60

50

40

30




Ci 95%


Ci 99,8%NORTH WEsTNORTH EAsTCENTREsOUTHwith abbreviated region name

57

71

51

TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMRFVG

UMB

TOS*

CAMPUGSICSAR

86 86 86 85

71 7171 72

70


41

53

35

45


MALEs FEMALEs



SUmmARY MALEs & FEMALEs, PERiOd OF diAGNOsis: 2005-2009


65%

CONdiTiONEd ON HAviNG sURvivEd 1 yEAR AFTER diAGNOsis

79%

CONdiTiONEd ON HAviNG sURvivEd 5 yEARs AFTER diAGNOsis

94%



1 YEAR AFTER diAGNOsis

83%


70%


65%

diagnosisdiagnosis

65%0 2 41 3 5

83%0 1

94%0 2 41 3 5

65%0 2 41 3 5

79%0 2 41 3 5

70%0 21 3


25

11 yEARs LOsT

11

5 yEARs LOsT

CANCER

GENERAL POPULATiON


diagnosis

66%

66%

MALEs

FEMALEs


NORTH WEsT


NORTH EAsT


CENTRE


sOUTHNORTH WEsT

M 66% (65-67)

F 66% (65-67)

CENTRE

M 68% (66-70)

F 66% (64-68)

NORTH EAsT

M 68% (66-69)

F 67% (66-68)

sOUTH

M 60% (59-61)

F 62% (60-63)

POOL

M 66% (65-66)

F 66% (65-66)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPs

NET sURvivAL (%)

mALES & FEmALESmALES & FEmALES

B 5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL (%) BY AGE AND GENDER, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (79741 ObSERvEd CASES)

A 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AND GENDER, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (79741 ObSERvEd CASES)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

36 16

COLON CANCERCOLON CANCER

TUmORE DEL COLONCOLON CANCER

NO siGNiFiCANTdiFFERENCE in cancer survival

5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL - GEOGRAPHICAL COmPARISONS

REGIONS

ABOvE THE NATiONAL MEAN

BELOW THE NATiONAL MEAN

WiTHOUT dATA

AROUNd THE NATiONAL MEAN

sOUTH

M 60%

F 62%

CENTRE

M 68%

F 66%

NORTH EAsT

M 68%

F 67%

NORTH WEsT

M 66%

F 66%

In the NORTH and CENTRE of Italy cancer survivalis higher than in the sOUTH



69

71

68

68

72

73

68

5754

70


85 Ulteriori dati disponibili sul sito: www.registri-tumori.it


GENERAL POPULATiONCANCER

9040 50 60 70 80

H TImE TREND OF 5-, 10-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) POOL OF 17 CANCER REGISTRIES

mALES & FEmALES

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

mALES & FEmALES

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

mALES & FEmALES

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

mALES & FEmALES

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

mALES & FEmALES

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

mALES & FEmALES

HigH


CANCER

ALivE

OTHER CAUsEs

NORTH WEsT

POOL

NORTH EAsT

CENTRE

sOUTH

5 yEARs AFTER diAGNOsis10 yEARs AFTER diAGNOsis

Epidemiol Prev 2017; 41 (2) suppl1. doi: 10.19191/EP17.2S1.P001.017


F CONDITIONAL 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL AFTER SURVIVING 1, 5 YEARS (%) POOL OF 26 CANCER REGISTRIES (67086 ObSERvEd CASES)

E 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY REGION, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (78024 ObSERvEd CASES)


C AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (79741 ObSERvEd CASES)

62.5

60.0

5-yE

AR

NET

sU

Rviv

AL

(%)

POOL

70.0

67.5

65.0

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

Ci 95%


Ci 99,8%NORTH WEsTNORTH EAsTCENTREsOUTHwith abbreviated region name

70

83

65

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG SIC

SAR

94 96 94 92 92

79 79 8074

79

57

67

54

64


MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES



GENERAL POPULATIONCANCER

9040 50 60 70 80

H TIME TREND OF 5-, 10-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) POOL OF 17 CANCER REGISTRIES

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

HIGH


CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH

CI 95%


CI 99,8%NORTH WESTNORTH EASTCENTRESOUTHwith abbreviated region name


G LIFE EXPECTANCY POOL OF 18 CANCER REGISTRIES (35615 OBSERVED CASES)

F CONDITIONAL 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL AFTER SURVIVING 1, 5 YEARS (%) POOL OF 26 CANCER REGISTRIES (35745 OBSERVED CASES)

E 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY REGION, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (42108 OBSERVED CASES)

D CRUDE PROBABILITY OF DEATH (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (42496 OBSERVED CASES)

LOW

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

57.5

70.0

67.5

65.0

62.5

60.0

POOL

C AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (43088 OBSERVED CASES)

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

71

83

66

TAA LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUGSICSAR

6367

5356

CI 95%



9495 94 90 94

78 80757978


FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LOW HIGH


CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH




D CRUDE PROBABILITY OF DEATH (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (35317OBSERVED CASES)




POOL

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

57.5

70.0

67.5

65.0

62.5

60.0

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

COLON CANCER

70

83

66

TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

SAR

CI 95%



80 7973

7979

95 97 95 95 91

6865

5559





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


MALES FEMALES

POOL

M 62% (61-63)

F 63% (62-64)

SUMMARY MALES & FEMALES, PERIOD OF DIAGNOSIS: 2005-2009


dIaGnOsIsdIaGnOsIs

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CANCER

GENERAL POPULATION

70aGE aT dIaGnOsIs50aGE aT

dIaGnOsIs

MALES 36 16

5 YEARS LOST

11

14 YEARS LOST

22

NORTH EAST

M 64% (63-66)

F 65% (63-66)

SOUTH

M 58% (56-59)

F 58% (56-60)

CENTRE

M 65% (62-68)

F 65% (62-68)

NORTH WEST

M 63% (62-64)

F 64% (62-65)

63%

62%


A 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AND GENDER, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (34802 OBSERVED CASES)

5 YEARS AFTER DIAGNOSIS

62%

CONDITIONED ON HAVING SURVIVED 5 YEARS AFTER DIAGNOSIS

90%

CONDITIONED ON HAVING SURVIVED 1 YEAR AFTER DIAGNOSIS

72%

90%

72%

62%

62%

69%

85%


62%

1 YEAR AFTER DIAGNOSIS

85%


69%

B 5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL (%) BY AGE AND GENDER, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (34802 OBSERVED CASES)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

RECTUM CANCERRECTUM CANCER

TUMORE DEL RETTORECTum CANCER

NO SIGNIFICANTDIFFERENCE in cancer survival

5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL - GEOGRAPHICAL COMPARISONS

REGIONS

ABOVE THE NATIONAL MEAN

BELOW THE NATIONAL MEAN

WITHOUT DATA

AROUND THE NATIONAL MEAN

SOUTH

M 58%

F 58%

CENTRE

M 65%

F 65%

NORTH EAST

M 64%

F 65%

NORTH WEST

M 63%

F 64%

In the NORTH and CENTRE of Italy cancer survival is higher than in the SOUTH



FEMALES

68

69

65

50

68

70

73

67

47

70





9040 50 60 70 80


MALES & FEMALES

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MALES & FEMALES

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

MALES & FEMALES

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

MALES & FEMALES

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MALES & FEMALES

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MALES & FEMALES

HIGH


CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH







POOL

LOW

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

50

55

60

65

75

70

RECTUM CANCER

RECTUM CANCER


RECTUM CANCER

RECTUM CANCER

CI 95%



69

85

62

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SICSAR

9092 90 91

85

7274 72

6572

52

64

47

58


MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

HIGH


CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH






LOW

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

45

50

55

65

60

POOL

RECTUM CANCER

RECTUM CANCER


RECTUM CANCER

RECTUM CANCER


75

70

CI 95%



69

85

62

TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMRFVG

PIE*

UMBTOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

9093

8995

84

72 73 7266

72

51

65

46

57


FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH








LOW HIGH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


50

55

65

60

75

70

CI 95%



POOL

RECTUM CANCER

RECTUM CANCER


RECTUM CANCER

RECTUM CANCER

69

85

63

TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

7376 71

6471

91 92 92 87 87

49

655953





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALES FEMALES

POOL

M 65% (64-65)

F 65% (64-65)

SUMMARY MALES & FEMALES, PERIOD OF DIAGNOSIS: 2005-2009


65%

CONDITIONED ON HAVING SURVIVED 1 YEAR AFTER DIAGNOSIS

77%

CONDITIONED ON HAVING SURVIVED 5 YEARS AFTER DIAGNOSIS

93%


1 YEAR AFTER DIAGNOSIS

83%


70%


65%

dIaGnOsIsdIaGnOsIs

65%0 2 41 3 5

83%0 1

93%0 2 41 3 5

65%0 2 41 3 5

77%0 2 41 3 5

70%0 21 3


CANCER

GENERAL POPULATION

70aGE aT dIaGnOsIs50aGE aT

dIaGnOsIs

MALES

FEMALES

36 16

65%

65%

SOUTH

M 59% (58-60)

F 61% (64-65)

CENTRE

M 67% (66-69)

F 66% (64-67)

NORTH EAST

M 67% (66-68)

F 67% (66-68)NORTH WEST

M 65% (64-66)

F 66% (65-66)

12 YEARS LOST

24

B 5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL (%) BY AGE AND GENDER, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (114543 OBSERVED CASES, m+F)

A 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AND GENDER, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (114543 OBSERVED CASES)

COLORECTAL CANCERCOLORECTAL CANCER

TUMORE DEL COLON RETTOCOLORECTAL CANCER


5 YEARS LOST

11

NO SIGNIFICANTDIFFERENCE in cancer survival


REGIONS

ABOVE THE NATIONAL MEAN

BELOW THE NATIONAL MEAN

WITHOUT DATA

AROUND THE NATIONAL MEAN

SOUTH

M 59%

F 61%

CENTRE

M 67%

F 66%

NORTH EAST

M 67%

F 67%

NORTH WEST

M 65%

F 66%

In the NORTH and CENTRE of Italy cancer survival is higher than in the SOUTH



69

70

67

55

68

71

73

68

52

70





9040 50 60 70 80


MALES & FEMALES

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MALES & FEMALES

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

MALES & FEMALES

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

MALES & FEMALES

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MALES & FEMALES

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

MALES & FEMALES

HIGH


CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH







LOW

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

58

60

62

64

70

68

66

POOL

COLORECTAL CANCER

COLORECTAL CANCER

COLORECTAL CANCER


COLORECTAL CANCER

CI 95%



70

83

65

TAA LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

93 95 93 92 90

77 78 7771

77

6266

5256


MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

HIGH


CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH







LOW

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

56

62

60

58

64

66

68

70

POOL

COLORECTAL CANCER

COLORECTAL CANCER

COLORECTAL CANCER


COLORECTAL CANCER

CI 95%



70

84

65

TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

SAR

93 95 92 91 90

76 77 777277

55

66

50

61


FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LOW HIGH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CANCER

ALIVE

OTHER CAUSES

NORTH WEST

POOL

NORTH EAST

CENTRE

SOUTH








POOL

56

62

60

58

64

66

68

70

COLORECTAL CANCER

COLORECTAL CANCER

COLORECTAL CANCER


COLORECTAL CANCER

CI 95%



70

83

65

TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

94 95 94 92 89

77 79 7770

77

5753

6367





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs FEMALEs

POOL

M 21% (20-21)

F 20% (19-22)

Summary MALEs & FEMALEs, PEriOd OF diAgnOsis: 2005-2009

net Survival COnDitiOnal 5-year net Survival

diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

4 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3

5-year net Survival by genDer

MALEs

FEMALEs

16

0 21 3

liFe eXPeCtanCy at a given age OF DiagnOSiS

CAnCEr

gEnErAL POPULATiOn


diagnosis

36

10 percent points higher in 15 years52%

30%

20% 51%

33%

20%

sOUTH

M 20% (18-21)

F 19% (17-21)

CEnTrE

M 17% (14-19)

F 20% (16-25)

nOrTH EAsT

M 19% (18-20)

F 21% (19-23)nOrTH WEsT

M 23% (22-24)

F 21% (19-24)

13 YEArs LOsT

3

30 YEArs LOsT

620%

21%

5 yearS AFTEr diAgnOsis

20%


20%


30%

1 year AFTEr diAgnOsis

52%

b 5-year net Survival (%) by age anD genDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (29365 OBSERVED CASES)

a 5-year age-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by geOgraPHiCal area anD genDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (29365 OBSERVED CASES)

COndiTiOnEd On HAving sUrvivEd 5 YEArs AFTEr diAgnOsis

51%

COndiTiOnEd On HAving sUrvivEd 1 YEAr AFTEr diAgnOsis

33%

liver CanCerliver CanCer

tumOre Del FegatOLIVER CANCER

nO signiFiCAnTdiFFErEnCE in cancer survival

5-year net Survival - geOgraPHiCal COmPariSOnS

regiOnS

ABOvE THE nATiOnAL MEAn

BELOW THE nATiOnAL MEAn

WiTHOUT dATA

ArOUnd THE nATiOnAL MEAn

sOUTH

M 20%

F 19%

CEnTrE

M 17%

F 20%

nOrTH EAsT

M 19%

F 21%

nOrTH WEsT

M 23%

F 21%

In the nOrTH WEsT of Italy cancer survival tends to be higher than in the other areas

5-year net Survival - by regiOn


29

26

20

12

34

24

20

9

3630




gEnErAL POPULATiOnCAnCEr

9040 50 60 70 80

H time trenD OF 5-, 10-year age-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) POOL OF 17 CANCER REGISTRIES

maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

OTHEr CAUsEs

Ci 95%


Ci 99,8%nOrTH WEsTnOrTH EAsTCEnTrEsOUTHwith abbreviated region name

nOrTH WEsT

POOL

nOrTH EAsT

CEnTrE

sOUTH

5 YEArs AFTEr diAgnOsis10 YEArs AFTEr diAgnOsis

g liFe eXPeCtanCy POOL OF 18 CANCER REGISTRIES (13641 OBSERVED CASES)

e 5-year age-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by regiOn, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (28819 OBSERVED CASES)

F COnDitiOnal 5-year age-StanDarDiZeD net Survival aFter Surviving 1, 5 yearS (%) POOL OF 26 CANCER REGISTRIES (12685 OBSERVED CASES)

D CruDe PrObability OF DeatH (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (28886 OBSERVED CASES)

C age-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (29365 OBSERVED CASES)

AFTEr 5 YEArsLoW

POOL

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

15

20

25

liver CanCer

liver CanCer


liver CanCer

liver CanCer


30

52

20

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*CAM

PUG SIC

SAR51

53 5155

33 33 29 2835

59 10

19


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

OTHEr CAUsEs

nOrTH WEsT

POOL

nOrTH EAsT

CEnTrE

sOUTH








AFTEr 1 YEAr AFTEr 5 YEArs

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

20

25

30

POOL

liver CanCer

liver CanCer


liver CanCer

liver CanCer

15

Ci 95%




30

52

21

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG

SICSAR

4850

4850

32 2835

32

95

20

10


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

OTHEr CAUsEs

nOrTH WEsT

POOL

nOrTH EAsT

CEnTrE

sOUTH







AFTEr 5 YEArs


0

POOL

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

liver CanCer

liver CanCer


liver CanCer

liver CanCer

Ci 95%




29

51

20

TAA

LOMLIG VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG SIC

SAR

6464 66

3639 37

26

38

1220

611





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


MALEs FEMALEs

POOL

M 17% (15-18)

F 15% (14-17)

Summary MALEs & FEMALEs, PEriOd OF diAgnOsis: 2005-2009


diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3

liFe eXPeCtanCy at a given age OF DiagnOSiS5-year net Survival by genDer

CAnCEr

gEnErAL POPULATiOn


diagnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16

39%

21%

16% 82%

38%

16%

COndiTiOnEd On HAving sUrvivEd 5 YEArs AFTEr diAgnOsis

82%

COndiTiOnEd On HAving sUrvivEd 1 YEAr AFTEr diAgnOsis

38%


16%



16%


21%

1 year AFTEr diAgnOsis

39%

15%

17%

sOUTH

M 17% (15-20)

F 15% (13-17)

CEnTrE

M 18% (13-24)

F 19% (14-24)

nOrTH EAsT

M 17% (14-20)

F 16% (14-19)nOrTH WEsT

M 16% (14-19)

F 14% (12-17)

27 YEArs LOsT

9

b 5-year net Survival (%) by age anD genDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (11067 OBSERVED CASES)

a 5-year age-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by geOgraPHiCal area anD genDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (11067 OBSERVED CASES)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

gallblaDDer anD eXtraHePatiC bile DuCtSgallblaDDer anD eXtraHePatiC bile DuCtS

tumOre Della COleCiSti e Delle vie biliariGALLBLADDER AND ExTRAhEPATIC BILE DuCTS CANCER

13 YEArs LOsT

3

nO signiFiCAnT diFFErEnCE in cancer survival

5-year net Survival - geOgraPHiCal COmPariSOnS

regiOnS

ABOvE THE nATiOnAL MEAn

BELOW THE nATiOnAL MEAn

WiTHOUT dATA

ArOUnd THE nATiOnAL MEAn

sOUTH

M 17%

F 15%

CEnTrE

M 18%

F 19%

nOrTH EAsT

M 17%

F 16%

nOrTH WEsT

M 16%

F 14%

nO SIGNIFICANT diFFErEnCEs in cancer survival across iTALY

5-year net Survival - by regiOn


28

22

13

9

23

26

19

15

7

27




gEnErAL POPULATiOnCAnCEr

9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

OTHEr CAUsEs

nOrTH WEsT

POOL

nOrTH EAsT

CEnTrE

sOUTH


908070605040






AFTEr 5 YEArs

5

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

30

25

20

15

10

Ci 95%



POOL


gallblaDDer anD eXtraHePatiC bile DuCtS gallblaDDer anD eXtraHePatiC bile DuCtS


21

39

16

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG SIC

8287

78

3840 3636

1519

1012


EMR


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CAnCEr

ALivE

OTHEr CAUsEs

nOrTH WEsT

POOL

nOrTH EAsT

CEnTrE

sOUTH


908070605040

AgE AT diAgnOsis







AFTEr 5 YEArsLoW HigH

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

PrECisiOn OF THE POOL EsTiMATE

0

35

30

25

20

10

Ci 95%



POOL




15

5

22

41

17

TAA

LOM

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

7577

3741 32

32

1418

1115



FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CAnCEr

ALivE

OTHEr CAUsEs

nOrTH WEsT

POOL

nOrTH EAsT

CEnTrE

sOUTH



908070605040






AFTEr 5 YEArsAFTEr 1 YEArLoW HigH

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

PrECisiOn OF THE POOL EsTiMATE

POOL

0

35

30

25

20

15

10

5




Ci 95%



20

38

15

TAALOM

LIG

VEN EMRPIE*

UMB

PUG

SIC

SAR

86

40

10

20

9

17


20

38

15





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

10010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

MALEs FEMALEs

Summary MALEs & FEMALEs, pEriod oF diAgnosis: 2005-2009


diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3

liFe eXPeCtanCy at a Given aGe OF DiaGnOSiS5-year net Survival by GenDer

CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosiswoMEn survive longer than men

MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16

9%

7%

pooL

M 7% (7-8)

F 9% (9-10)

soUTH

M 7% (6-8)

F 9% (8-10)

CEnTrE

M 7% (6-9)

F 11% (8-14)

norTH EAsT

M 8% (7-9)

F 9% (8-11)norTH wEsT

M 7% (7-9)

F 9% (8-10)

b 5-year net Survival (%) by aGe anD GenDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (26062 OBSERVED CASES)

a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by GeOGraPHiCal area anD GenDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (26062 OBSERVED CASES)

14 YEArs LosT32 YEArs LosT

24

8%

11%

30%5 percent points higher in 15 years

78%

28%

8%

CondiTionEd on HAving sUrvivEd 5 YEAr AFTEr diAgnosis

78%


28%

5 yearS AFTEr diAgnosis

8%


8%


11%

1 year AFTEr diAgnosis

30%

75-9

9

0

PanCreaS CanCerPanCreaS CanCer

tumOre Del PanCreaS PANCREAS CANCER

5-year net Survival - GeOGraPHiCal COmPariSOnS

reGiOnS

ABovE THE nATionAL MEAn

BELow THE nATionAL MEAn

wiTHoUT dATA

AroUnd THE nATionAL MEAn

soUTH

M 7%

F 9%

CEnTrE

M 7%

F 11%

norTH EAsT

M 8%

F 9%

norTH wEsT

M 7%

F 9%

no SIGNIFICANT diFFErEnCEs in cancer survival across iTALY

5-year net Survival - by reGiOn


13

7

6

3

36

14

10

7

3

21




gEnErAL popULATionCAnCEr

9040 50 60 70 80

H time trenD OF 5-, 10-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) POOL OF 17 CANCER REGISTRIES

maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH

5 YEArs AFTEr diAgnosis10 YEArs AFTEr diAgnosis

G liFe eXPeCtanCy POOL OF 18 CANCER REGISTRIES (12462 OBSERVED CASES)

F COnDitiOnal 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival aFter SurvivinG 1, 5 yearS (%) POOL OF 26 CANCER REGISTRIES (10460 OBSERVED CASES)


C aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (26062 OBSERVED CASES)

e 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by reGiOn, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (25596 OBSERVED CASES)

AFTEr 5 YEArs

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

14

12

13

11

10

9

4

5

6

7

8

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

Ci 95%


Ci 99,8%norTH wEsTnorTH EAsTCEnTrEsoUTHwith abbreviated region name

pooL


11

30

8

TAA

LOMVEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG SIC

78 7281 75

28 28 25 2727

45 8

10

SAR


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH


17.5

12.5

15.0

10.0

7.5

5.0

2.5

AFTEr 5 YEArs






pooL

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

Ci 95%




10

28

7

TAA LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG

SICSAR

75

89

26 27 2328

59

3 8


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH







AFTEr 5 YEArs

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

pooL


PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

PanCreaS CanCer

20.0

17.5

12.5

15.0

10.0

7.5

5.0

Ci 95%




13

32

9

TAA LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

83 80 82

67

911

30 3027

33

26





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs FEMALEs

100



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16

70%

69%



pooL

M 69% (68-71)

F 70% (67-73)

soUTH

M 68% (66-71)

F 73% (65-80)

CEnTrE

M 68% (62-72)

F 71% (31-90)

norTH EAsT

M 69% (62-72)


M 70% (68-72)

F 71% (65-75)

7 YEArs LosT

9

17 YEArs LosT

19

84%

76%

69%


84%


76%


69%

69%

75%



69%


75%


88%

larynX CanCerlarynX CanCer

tumOre Della larinGe LARyNx CANCER

no signiFiCAnTdiFFErEnCE in cancer survival


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

M 68%

F 73%

CEnTrE

M 68%

F 71%

norTH EAsT

M 69%

F 69%

norTH wEsT

M 70%

F 71%




70

72

70

64

85

76

75

69

62

76





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH


908070605040






pooL

85

75

80

70

65

60

50

55

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)




Ci 95%



75

88

69

TAALOM

LIG VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

8488

8285 84

76 76 74 7576

71

6154

67


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH


908070605040





pooL

85

75

80

70

65

60

50

55

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)





Ci 95%



75

88

69

LOM

LIG VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SICSAR

8387

81 82 84

75 75 72 7475

60

71

54

66


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH



90

AgE AT diAgnosis

8070605040






pooL

90

80

60

70

50

40

30

20




Ci 95%




UMB

76

86

70

TAA

LOM

VENEMR

FVG

CAMPUG

SIC

8282 81

8592 97

83

7166

54

74




MALEs FEMALEs



16%


35%


72%




42%


21%


16%

diagnosisdiagnosis

16%0 2 41 3 5

42%0 1

72%0 2 41 3 5

16%0 2 41 3 5

35%0 2 41 3 5

21%0 21 3


6

30 YEArs LosT

3

13 YEArs LosT

CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion



15%

19%

MALEs

FEMALEs

CANCER REGISTRy AREA

norTH wEsT


norTH EAsT


CEnTrE


soUTHnorTH wEsT

M 16% (15-16)

F 20% (20-21)

CEnTrE

M 15% (14-16)

F 19% (17-21)

norTH EAsT

M 15% (14-15)

F 19% (18-20)

soUTH

M 13% (13-14)

F 18% (17-20)

pooL

M 15% (14-15)

F 19% (19-20)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

Ups

nET sUrvivAL (%)

maleS & FemaleSmaleS & FemaleS



15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

36 16

lunG CanCerlunG CanCer

tumOre Del POlmOneLuNG CANCER


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

M 13%

F 18%

CEnTrE

M 15%

F 19%

norTH EAsT

M 15%

F 19%

norTH wEsT

M 16%

F 20%

Cancer survival tends to be higher in the norTH wEsT and lower in the soUTH



17

17

15

8

33

25

24

21

9

27





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH


maleS & FemaleS






AFTEr YEAr AFTEr 5 YEArs

pooL

19

17

18

16

15

14

13

12

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)


lunG CanCer lunG CanCer


Ci 95%



21

42

16

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

72 72 7376

69

35 35 3430

38

912 12

16


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH






pooL

20.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

10.0





Ci 95%



19

40

15

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

SAR

73 73 7479

66

33 33 3227

36

12 158 11


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH








pooL

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%) 22.5

25.0

20.0

17.5

15.0




Ci 95%



25

46

19

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*CAM

PUG

SICSAR

71 72 71 6975

40 40 38 3843

1420

1015





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs FEMALEs



77%


diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 581%

0 1

0 2 41 3 562%

0 2 41 3 5

77%0 2 41 3 5

67%0 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16

88%

62%


88%


62%



a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by GeOGraPHiCal area, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (1222 OBSERVED CASES)

65%

60%

7 YEArs LosT

9

11 YEArs LosT

25

pooL

62% (59-65)

soUTH

57% (51-62)

CEnTrE

64% (55-72)

norTH EAsT

60% (54-65)

norTH wEsT

67% (62-71)


62%


67%


81%

bOne CanCerbOne CanCer

tumOre Dell’OSSOBONE CANCER



reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

57%

CEnTrE

64%

norTH EAsT

60%

norTH wEsT

67%




80

59

58

28

77

85

63

58

29

65





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH







AFTEr 5 YEArsAFTEr YEAr

pooL

010

80

90

70

50

40

60

30

20

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

bOne CanCer

bOne CanCer bOne CanCer

bOne CanCer

bOne CanCerbOne CanCer

Ci 95%




TAALOM

LIG

VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG

SIC

SAR

77 75 677283 88

92

44

52 5664

67

81

62





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs FEMALEs



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion



MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16


89%

85%

pooL

M 85% (84-85)

F 89% (88-90)

soUTH

M 78% (75-80)

F 84% (82-86)

CEnTrE

M 85% (82-87)

F 88% (86-91)

norTH EAsT

M 88% (86-89)


M 85% (83-86)

F 89% (88-91)

2 YEArs LosT

14

5 YEArs LosT

31

98%

91%

87%

87%

90%

96%


98%


91%


87%



87%


90%


96%

10090

Skin melanOma Skin melanOma

melanOma CutaneO SkIN mELANOmA



reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

M 78%

F 84%

CEnTrE

M 85%

F 88%

norTH EAsT

M 88%

F 91%

norTH wEsT

M 85%

F 89%

In the norTH and CEnTrE of Italy cancer survival is higher than in the soUTH



87

86

81

72

95

93

89

87

74

91





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH






30

40

50

60


pooL


95

85

90

80

75

70

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

Skin melanOmaSkin melanOma



Ci 95%



TAA

LOM

LIG

VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

SAR

98 100 98 95 9691 91 89 85

92

81

89

77

86

9096

87


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH








100

80

90

70

60

50

40

30

20




Ci 95%



8895

85

TAA

LOMLIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

SAR

76

87

70

84

99 100 99 95 10090 88 84

9190


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH









pooL




95

85

90

80

75

70

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

Ci 95%



91 91 89 8793

TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

98 100 98 94 93

8690

8387

9297

89





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs FEMALEs



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16



10%

8%

14 YEArs LosT

2

32 YEArs LosT

4

pooL

9% (7-10)

soUTH

9% (7-10)

CEnTrE n.a.

norTH wEsT

8% (7-10)

norTH EAsT

9% (6-11)

no progress in 15 years

9%

16%

51%

52%

14%

9%


52%


14%


9%


9%


16%


51%

meSOtHeliOmameSOtHeliOma

meSOteliOma mESOThELIOmA



reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

9%

CEnTrE

n.a.norTH EAsT

9%

norTH wEsT

8%




n.a. : not available

13

9

8

2

45

16

12

8

4

21





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH






0

20

15

10

5

0


5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

Ci 95%



pooL

meSOtHeliOma

meSOtHeliOma

meSOtHeliOmameSOtHeliOma

meSOtHeliOma

meSOtHeliOma


16

51

9

LOM

EMRFVG

PIE*

TOS*

CAMSIC

SAR

AFTEr 5 YEArsAFTEr YEAr

52

1014

8 84

4

0





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs FEMALEs



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosis

MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16


83%

86%

4 YEArs LosT

12

10 YEArs LosT

26



pooL

85% (82-87)

soUTH

85% (80-89)

CEnTrE

79% (60-90)

norTH EAsT

83% (76-88)

norTH wEsT

86% (81-90)

98%

90%

85%


98%


90%


85%

85%

89%

92%


85%


89%


92%

kaPOSi SarCOmakaPOSi SarCOma

SarCOma Di kaPOSi kAPOSI SARCOmA



reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

85%

CEnTrE

79%

norTH EAsT

83%

norTH wEsT

86%




89

85

88

85

79

88

80

88

79

83





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH







100

80

90

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)


Ci 95%



pooL


kaPOSi SarCOma kaPOSi SarCOma



8992

85

TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*TOS* CAM PUG

SIC

SAR

90 90 8693 98 100 95 99

74

86

62

87





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs FEMALEs




70%

diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 570%

0 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosis

64%MALEs

FEMALEs

36 16



64% 6 YEArs LosT

10

12 YEArs LosT

24

pooL

64% (62-66)

soUTH

57% (54-61)

CEnTrE

67% (61-72)

norTH EAsT

67% (64-70)

norTH wEsT

66% (63-68)

64%

84%

91%

75%

64%


91%


75%


64%



64%


84%

SOFt tiSSue SarCOmaSOFt tiSSue SarCOma

tumOre Dei teSSuti mOlli SOFT TISSuE SARCOmA



reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


CEnTrE

67%

CEnTrE

67%

norTH EAsT

67%

norTH wEsT

66%

In the soUTH of Italy cancer survival is lower than in other areas



73

66

58

48

73

74

65

57

41

71





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH






30

40

50

60


80

60

70

50

40


5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

Ci 95%



pooL


SOFt tiSSue SarCOma SOFt tiSSue SarCOma


70

84

64

TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVG PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG

SICSAR

91 91 8896 100

75 7778

7273

6066

57 59





diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3

liFe eXPeCtanCy at a Given aGe OF DiaGnOSiS

CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosis

3 YEArs LosT

15

7 YEArs LosT

31

1838


87%

91%

97%

90%

89%

87%


90%


89%


87%


87%


91%


97%


FemaleSFemaleS



norTH wEsT


norTH EAsT


CEnTrE


soUTHnorTH wEsT

F 87% (87-88)

CEnTrE

F 87% (86-88)

norTH EAsT

F 88% (87-89)

soUTH

F 85% (84-85)

pooL

F 87% (87-87)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

Ups

nET sUrvivAL (%)

b 5-year net Survival (%) by aGe, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (114451 OBSERVED CASES)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

Female breaSt CanCerFemale breaSt CanCer

tumOre Della mammella FemminileFEmALE BREAST CANCER


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

F 85%

CEnTrE

F 87%

norTH EAsT

F 88%

norTH wEsT

F 87%

In the norTH and CEnTrE of Italy cancer survival is higher than in soUTH



92

91

89

79

91


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH

AFTEr 5 YEArsAFTEr 1 YEAr






FemaleSFemaleS





LoW HigH

5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

prECision oF THE pooL EsTiMATE

90

88

89

87

86

85

83

84

Ci 95%



pooL




TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

SAR

90 91 9094

8689 89 89 8690

8088

70

80

9197

87





diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion


diagnosis


8 YEArs LosT11 YEArs LosT

1027

68%

73%

88%

93%

75%

68%


93%


75%


68%


68%


73%


88%


FemaleSFemaleS



norTH wEsT


norTH EAsT


CEnTrE


soUTHnorTH wEsT

F 70% (68-72)

CEnTrE

F 68% (64-72)

norTH EAsT

F 71% (68-73)

soUTH

F 64% (61-66)

pooL

F 68% (67-69)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

Ups

nET sUrvivAL (%)


a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by GeOGraPHiCal area, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (5969 observed CASES, m+F)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

CerviX uteri CanCerCerviX uteri CanCer

tumOre Della CerviCe uterina CERVIx uTERI CANCER


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

F 64%

CEnTrE

F 68%

norTH EAsT

F 71%

norTH wEsT

F 70%

In the norTH and CEnTrE of Italy cancer survival is higher than in soUTH



1838

77

71

59

36

84


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH










40

50

60

pooL


5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

85

75

80

70

65

60

45

40

50

55

Ci 95%



TAALOM

LIG

VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR


676160

65

93 94 9297

88

7782

667475

73

88

68





diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion

50agE aT diagnosis


4 YEArs LosT

14

77%

81%

91%

95%

84%

77%


95%


84%


77%


77%


81%


91%


FemaleSFemaleS



norTH wEsT


norTH EAsT


CEnTrE


soUTHnorTH wEsT

F 79% (78-81)

CEnTrE

F 75% (73-78)

norTH EAsT

F 77% (75-78)

soUTH

F 76% (74-77)

pooL

F 77% (77-78)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

Ups

nET sUrvivAL (%)



15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

COrPuS uteri CanCerCOrPuS uteri CanCer

tumOre Del COrPO Dell’uterOCORPuS uTERI CANCER


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

F 76%

CEnTrE

F 75%

norTH EAsT

F 77%

norTH wEsT

F 79%




5 YEArs LosT

33 701838

agE aT diagnosis

88

86

78

62

89


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH







30

40

50

60



5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

pooL

82.5

77.5

80.0

75.0

72.5

70.0




Ci 95%



TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB TOS*

CAM

PUG

SICSAR

95 96 95 97 95

84 85 82 8284

70

777475

81

91

77





diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CAnCEr

gEnErAL popULATion

50agE aT diagnosis


11 YEArs LosT

7

19 YEArs LosT

19

40%

50%

72%

78%

53%

40%


78%


53%


40%


40%


50%


72%


FemaleSFemaleS



norTH wEsT


norTH EAsT


CEnTrE


soUTHnorTH wEsT

F 40% (39-42)

CEnTrE

F 42% (39-46)

norTH EAsT

F 39% (38-41)

soUTH

F 38% (36-39)

pooL

F 40% (39-40)

1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AgE

gro

Ups

nET sUrvivAL (%)



15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

Ovary CanCerOvary CanCer

tumOre Dell’OvaiO OVARy CANCER


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

F 38%

CEnTrE

F 42%

norTH EAsT

F 39%

norTH wEsT

F 40%




701838

agE aT diagnosis

61

50

36

17

73


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCEr

ALivE

oTHEr CAUsEs

norTH wEsT

pooL

norTH EAsT

CEnTrE

soUTH








5-YE

Ar

nET

sU

rviv

AL

(%)

pooL

50

40

45

35

30

Ovary CanCer Ovary CanCer



Ci 95%



50

72

40

TAA LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

79 77 80

87

74

53 5257 54

51

3139

3037





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)

85+

75-8

465

-74

55-6

415

-54

Summary Males & FeMales, period oF diagnosis: 2005-2009


diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion

a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) By GeOGraPHiCal area, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (91442 ObSERvEd CASES)


diagnosis

0 Years losT

14

14

7 Years losT

27

34


pool

M 91% (91-92)

soUTH

M 88% (87-89)

CenTre

M 91% (89-92)

norTH easT

M 92% (92-93)

norTH WesT

M 92% (91-93)

91%

93%

97%

96%

94%

91%

CondiTioned on Having sUrvived 5 Year aFTer diagnosis

96%


94%

5 yearS aFTer diagnosis

91%


91%


93%

1 year aFTer diagnosis

97%

10090

B 5-year net Survival (%) By aGe, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (91442 ObSERvEd CASES)

maleSmaleS


PrOState CanCerPrOState CanCer

tumOre Della PrOStata PROSTATE CANCER


reGiOnS

aBove THe naTional Mean

BeloW THe naTional Mean

WiTHoUT daTa

aroUnd THe naTional Mean

soUTH

M 88%

CenTre

M 91%

norTH easT

M 92%

norTH WesT

M 92%

In the norTH and CenTre of Italy cancer survival is higher than in soUTH

5-year net Survival - By reGiOn


96

96

88

52

95


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH

5 Years aFTer diagnosis10 Years aFTer diagnosis

90807060

age aT diagnosis

5040

G liFe eXPeCtanCy POOL OF 18 CANCER REGISTRIES (88876 ObSERvEd CASES)

F COnDitiOnal 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival aFter SurvivinG 1, 5 yearS (%) POOL OF 26 CANCER REGISTRIES (100538 ObSERvEd CASES)

e 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) By reGiOn, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (89466 ObSERvEd CASES)

D CruDe PrOBaBility OF DeatH (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (90581 ObSERvEd CASES)

C aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (91442 ObSERvEd CASES)

Yea

rs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

aFTer 1 Year aFTer 5 Years

pool

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

100

95

90

85

80

maleSmaleS


PrOState CanCer

PrOState CanCer

PrOState CanCerPrOState CanCer

PrOState CanCer

PrOState CanCer

Ci 95%


Ci 99,8%norTH WesTnorTH easTCenTresoUTHwith abbreviated region name

9397

91

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG SIC

SAR

96 98 95 92 9094 95 92 8995

9092

63

75





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion

a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) By GeOGraPHiCal area, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (4621 ObSERvEd CASES)

pool

M 91% (88-93)

soUTH

M 90% (83-94)

CenTre

M 89% (79-95)

norTH easT

M 91% (86-94)

norTH WesT

M 93% (87-97)


91%

92%

95%

100%

95%

91%


100%


95%


91%


91%


92%


95%

10090

B 5-year net Survival (%) By aGe, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (4621 ObSERvEd CASES)

maleSmaleS


teStiS CanCerteStiS CanCer

tumOre Del teStiCOlO TESTIS CANCER


diagnosis

2 Years losT

12

14

3 Years losT

31

34


reGiOnS



WiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 90%

CenTre

M 89%

norTH easT

M 91%

norTH WesT

M 93%

no SIGNIFICANT diFFerenCes in cancer survival across iTalY



96

93

81

59

97


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS





1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







9030 40 50 60 70 80

age aT diagnosis

Yea

rs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

60

55

50

pool

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

100

60

70

80

90

50

40

30

20

Ci 95%




teStiS CanCer teStiS CanCer




LOMLIG

VEN EMR

FVG

UMBTOS*

PUGSIC


100 10010095

8795

929591





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

MALES & FEMALES

Males FeMales




83%

diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 583%

0 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3

liFe eXPeCtanCy at a Given aGe OF DiaGnOSiS5-year net Survival By GenDer

CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

16


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

age

gro

Ups

neT sUrvival (%)

maleS & FemaleS

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) By GeOGraPHiCal area anD GenDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (22885 ObSERvEd CASES)

72%

70%

5 Years losT

11

11 Years losT

25

36

pool

M 70% (69-71)

F 72% (71-73)

soUTH

M 66% (63-68)

F 69% (66-71)

CenTre

M 72% (69-75)

F 76% (73-80)

norTH easT

M 72% (70-73)

F 73% (71-74)norTH WesT

M 71% (69-72)

F 72% (70-74)

91%

84%

71%


91%


84%


71%

71%

74%


71%


74%

100

B 5-year net Survival (%) By aGe anD GenDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (22885 ObSERvEd CASES)

KiDney CanCerKiDney CanCer

tumOre Del rene KIdNEy CANCER

no signiFiCanTdiFFerenCe in cancer survival


reGiOnS



WiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 66%

F 69%

CenTre

M 72%

F 76%

norTH easT

M 72%

F 73%

norTH WesT

M 71%

F 72%




82

76

71

57

88

84

80

75

54

87




general popUlaTionCanCer

9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH






50


80

70

75

65

60


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool




TAALOM

LIG

VEN EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

84 85 85 838391 91 90

92 90

6255

7366

7483

71


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH









10



5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

pool

85

75

80

70

65

60

55

Ci 95%




7483

70

TAA LOM

LIG

VEN EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

6772

5662

92 93 93 91 88

84 85 867982


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH











pool


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

85

75

80

70

65

60

55

Ci 95%



TAA LOM

LIG

VEN EMRFVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

89 88 8896 91

65

73

56

62

85 86 84 8885

7583

72





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16



Men survive longer than women

56%

62%

8 Years losT

8

12 Years losT

24

pool

60%(58-62)

soUTH

58%(53-61)

CenTre

65%(59-71)

norTH WesT

61%(58-64)

norTH easT

59%(56-62)


60%

66%

79%

90%

70%

60%

CondiTioned on Having sUrvived 5 Years aFTer diagnosis

90%


70%


60%


60%


66%


79%

100

urinary traCt CanCerurinary traCt CanCer

tumOre Delle vie urinarie URINARy TRACT CANCER

Males FeMales


reGiOnS



WiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

58%

CenTre

65%

norTH easT

59%

norTH WesT

61%




74

69

61

45

79

65

64

56

40

87





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







80

70

75

65

60

55

50

45

40

35


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

pool

urinary traCt CanCer urinary traCt CanCer



Ci 95%




LOM

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM PUG

SIC

SAR

70 71 66 6768

9487

9490

5559

5157

66

79

60





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16



5 Years losT

11

7 Years losT

2978%

80%

pool

M 80% (79-80)

F 78% (77-79)

soUTH

M 79% (78-80)

F 79% (77-81)

CenTre

M 78% (76-79)

F 75% (72-79)

norTH easT

M 81% (80-82)


M 80% (79-81)

F 78% (76-79)

90%

86%

79%

79%

83%

91%


90%


86%


79%


79%


83%


91%


100

blaDDer CanCerblaDDer CanCer

tumOre Della veSCiCa BLADDER CANCER

Men survive longer than women


reGiOnS



WiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 79%

F 79%

CenTre

M 78%

F 75%

norTH easT

M 81%

F 79%

norTH WesT

M 80%

F 78%




90

86

80

67

94

89

87

80

62

97

Males FeMales





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH






85.0

80.0

82.5

77.5

75.0

72.5

70.0

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool


blaDDer CanCer blaDDer CanCer



TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

71

79

67

75

9093

88 90 8986 86 83 8486

8391

79


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH






85.0

80.0

82.5

77.5

75.0

72.5

70.0

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)


pool




Ci 95%



TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

71

80

6775

8993

8789 89

86 86 83 8487

8491

80


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH








90

80

85

75

70

65

60

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)


Ci 95%



pool




TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

6875

67

75

92 93 93 928885 85 84 8385

8189

78





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16



6 Years losT

10

14 Years losT

2270%

72%

pool

71% (66-75)

soUTH

73% (61-81)

CenTre

64% (45-77)

norTH easT

72% (64-79)

norTH WesT

70% (62-77)

88%

71%

71%

71%

80%

96%


88%


71%


71%


71%


80%


96%

10090


CHOrOiD melanOmaCHOrOiD melanOma

melanOma Dell’OCCHiO ChOROID mELANOmA


reGiOnS



WiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

73%

CenTre

64%

norTH easT

72%

norTH WesT

70%





Males FeMales

78

58

71

93

72

72

62

79

8070





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







100

40

50

60

70

80

90

30

20

10

0

LoW


HigH

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool




TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

PUG SIC

59

73

6265

68

10088

94

65

77

71

80

96

71






NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

10090



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosisWoMen survive longer than men

Males

FeMales

36 16



14 Years losT

2

30 Years losT

626%

23%

pool

M 23% (22-24)

F 26% (25-27)

soUTH

M 22% (20-24)

F 27% (24-29)

CenTre

M 23% (20-27)

F 26% (21-31)

norTH easT

M 25% (23-27)


M 21% (19-23)

F 25% (23-27)


78%

43%

24%

24%

29%

54%


78%


43%


24%


24%


29%


54%

brain anD CnS CanCerbrain anD CnS CanCer

tumOre Dell’enCeFalO e Del SnCBRAIN AND CNS CANCER


reGiOnS



WiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 22%

F 27%

CenTre

M 23%

F 26%

norTH easT

M 25%

F 26%

norTH WesT

M 21%

F 25%

In the norTH easT of Italy cancer survival tends to be higher than in the other areas



44

Males FeMales

21

10

6

56

29

15

7

54





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH






aFTer 5 YearsaFTer 1 Year

35

25

20

30

15


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool


brain anD CnS CanCer brain anD CnS CanCer


TAA

LOM

LIG

VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

2127

1622

78 77 75

85

4346 4041

29

54

24



maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH








5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

pool

40

30

35

25

20

15

10




Ci 95%



TAA

LOMLIG

VEN

EMRFVG

PIE*

UMBTOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

19

27

1521

77

343841

28

53

23



FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH








40

FemaleS

LoW


HigH

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool

30

35

25

20

15




TAA

LOMLIG VEN EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

22

282418

87 74

46 45

50

43

31

54

26






NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

10010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosisWoMen survive longer than men

Males

FeMales

36 16


0 Years losT0 Years losT

163695%

90%

pool

M 90% (89-91)

F 95% (94-95)

soUTH

M 91% (88-93)

F 94% (93-96)

CenTre

M 91% (86-94)

F 98% (94-99)

norTH easT

M 91% (88-93)


M 88% (85-90)

F 93% (92-94)


100%

98%

93%

93%

94%

95%


100%


98%


93%


93%


94%


95%

0


tHyrOiD CanCertHyrOiD CanCer

tumOre Della tirOiDeThyROID CANCER

Males FeMales


reGiOnS



WiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 91%

F 94%

CenTre

M 91%

F 98%

norTH easT

M 91%

F 95%

norTH WesT

M 88%

F 93%

In the CenTre of Italy cancer survival tends to be higher than in the norTH WesT



10099

10097

9892

9589

7361




9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







100

90

95

85

80


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool





TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVG PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

100 99 100 94 10099 98 989698

95

8184

939495


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH








pool

100

90

95

85

80

75

70

65

60

55




Ci 95%



TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG SIC

SAR

7579

9193

99 100 9993

10097 97 95 9896

91 9093


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH WesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH









5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

pool

100

90

95

85

80

75

70


tHyrOiDtHyrOiD


Ci 95%



TAA

LOMLIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SICSAR

9597

8386

100 98 100 96 10098 99 100 9796

9596 95





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion

woMen survive longer than men

Males

FeMales

a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by GeOGraPHiCal area anD GenDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (4990 ObSERvEd CASES)


diagnosis

36 16

6 Years losT

10

10 Years losT

2687%

82%

pool

M 82% (80-83)

F 87% (85-88)

soUTH

M 83% (80-85)

F 87% (84-89)

CenTre

M 82% (77-86)

F 89% (83-93)

norTH easT

M 81% (78-84)

F 86% (84-89)norTH wesT

M 81% (78-83)

F 87% (84-89)


96%

92%

84%

84%

86%

92%


96%


92%


84%


84%


86%


92%

100

b 5-year net Survival (%) by aGe anD GenDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (4990 ObSERvEd CASES)

HODGkin lymPHOmaHODGkin lymPHOma

linFOma Di HODGkinHOdGkIN LymPHOmA


reGiOnS


Below THe naTional Mean

wiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 83%

F 87%

CenTre

M 82%

F 89%

norTH easT

M 81%

F 86%

norTH wesT

M 81%

F 87%


5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival - by reGiOn


Males FeMales

87

78

59

34

94

93

90

70

52

93





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH




D CruDe PrObability OF DeatH (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (3386 ObSERvEd CASES)



e 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by reGiOn, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (4825 ObSERvEd CASES)

pool

90

80

85

75

70

65

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

HODGkin lymPHOma


HODGkin lymPHOma


Ci 95%


Ci 99,8%norTH wesTnorTH easTCenTresoUTHwith abbreviated region name


TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG SIC

SAR

8388

7379

96 100 94 9592 92 92 9391

8692

84


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







pool


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

90

80

85

75

70

65

60

HODGkin lymPHOma


HODGkin lymPHOma


Ci 95%




TAA

LOMLIG VEN

EMR

FVG

UMB

TOS*

CAM

SIC

PIE*

PUG

8186

6978

939995

8491

82

90 90 8791


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH









pool

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

95

90

80

85

75

70

65

60

HODGkin lymPHOma


HODGkin lymPHOma


Ci 95%




TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMRFVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

PUG

SIC

SAR

8589

7782

97 100 96 9893 93

99 9891

8994

87





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



65%


diagnosisdiagnosis

65%0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion

woMen survive longer than men

Males

FeMales



67%

63%

pool

M 63% (62-64)

F 67% (66-68)

soUTH

M 61% (59-63)

F 64% (62-66)

CenTre

M 65% (62-68)

F 69% (66-71)

norTH easT

M 66% (64-68)


M 63% (61-64)

F 67% (66-68)

87%

82%

65%

69%

78%


87%


82%


65%


69%


78%

100


nOn HODGkin lymPHOmanOn HODGkin lymPHOma

linFOma nOn HODGkinNON HOdGkIN LymPHOmA


diagnosis

36 16

6 Years losT

10

10 Years losT

26


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 61%

F 64%

CenTre

M 65%

F 69%

norTH easT

M 66%

F 70%

norTH wesT

M 63%

F 67%




Males FeMales

77

74

65

45

86

85

82

68

44

80





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH






75

70

65

60

55


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool




TAA

LOM

LIGVEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG SIC

SAR


87 88 8880

8582 84 79 8081

6169

44

54

69

78

65


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

pool65

70

60

55





Ci 95%



TAA

LOM

LIG VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMBTOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

86 84 8880

86

81 8275

8080

51

6168

42

68

78

63


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH








5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

pool

70

65

60

55

75




Ci 95%



47

5762

70

TAA

LOMLIG

VEN

EMRFVG

PIE*UMBTOS*

CAM

PUG SICSAR

8992

8980 84

83 85 847982

7180

67





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16



9 Years losT

7

20 Years losT

1651%

51%

pool

M 51% (49-52)

F 51% (50-52)

soUTH

M 49% (46-52)

F 50% (48-53)

CenTre

M 55% (50-59)

F 52% (46-56)

norTH easT

M 53% (50-55)


M 48% (46-51)

F 51% (48-53)

63%

57%

51%

51%

63%

80%


63%


57%


51%


51%


63%


80%

100


myelOmamyelOma

mielOmamyELOmA

Males FeMales


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 49%

F 50%

CenTre

M 55%

F 52%

norTH easT

M 53%

F 52%

norTH wesT

M 48%

F 51%





2929

4749

6362

7469

7877





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







65

55

60

50

45

40

35

maleS & FemaleS


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool

myelOmamyelOma

myelOma myelOma

myelOmamyelOma

63

80

51

TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

63 63 6656

65

5760

53 5056

33

51

26

41


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH






aFTer 5 Years

70

50

60

40

30

20


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool

myelOmamyelOma

myelOma myelOma

myelOmamyelOma


TAA LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

6467

64 58

5760

52 5156

32

50

40

25

62

80

51


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







LoW


HigH

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

preCision oF THe pool esTiMaTe

pool

65

55

60

50

45

40

35

myelOmamyelOma

myelOma myelOma

myelOmamyelOma

Ci 95%



TAALOMLIG

VEN EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

63 5867

53

68

5760 52 5056

aFTer Year aFTer 5 Years

SAR

34

53

27

43

64

51

81





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16

a 5-year aGe-StanDarDiZeD net Survival (%) by GeOGraPHiCal area, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (1116 ObSERvEd CASES)

37%

40%

13 Years losT

3

25 Years losT

11

pool

39% (36-42)

soUTH

37% (32-42)

CenTre

39% (27-51)

norTH easT

36% (29-42)

norTH wesT

43% (38-49)

39%

43%


85%

51%

39%


85%


51%


39%


39%


43%


68%

10090


aCute lymPHOCytiC leukaemiaaCute lymPHOCytiC leukaemia

leuCemia linFatiCa aCutaACuTE LymPHOCyTIC LEukAEmIA

Males FeMales


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT daTa


CenTre

39%

CenTre

39%

norTH easT

36%

norTH wesT

43%





29

20

12

14

48

33

32

14

3

54





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH








80

60

70

50

40

30

10

0

20

LoW HigH

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

preCision oF THe pool esTiMaTe

Ci 95%



pool





TAA

LOMLIG

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMBTOS*

PUG SIC

SAR

5552

51

85 79

3438

2528

43

68

39





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

MALEs

FEMALEs



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 583%

0 1

0 2 41 3 565%

0 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 570%

0 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16


7 Years losT

9

14 Years losT

2276%

73%

pool

74% (73-75)

soUTH

77% (74-79)

CenTre

68% (63-72)

norTH easT

74% (71-76)

norTH wesT

74% (71-76)


76%

78%

74%


76%


78%


74%


74%


82%


92%

100


CHrOniC lymPHOCytiC leukaemiaCHrOniC lymPHOCytiC leukaemia

leuCemia linFatiCa CrOniCaCHRONIC LymPHOCyTIC LEukAEmIA

Males FeMales


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

77%

CenTre

68%

norTH easT

74%

norTH wesT

74%





4949

7875

9385

9792

9293





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







90

70

80

60

50


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool




78 80 75 7677 76 77 7466

81

TAA

LOMLIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

55

74

53

71

8292

74





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16




22%

19%

14 Years losT

2

21 Years losT

15

pool

20% (19-21)

soUTH

20% (18-22)

CenTre

16% (13-19)

norTH easT

19% (17-21)

norTH wesT

23% (21-25)

20%

24%

41%

90%

45%

20%


90%


45%


20%


20%


24%


41%

10090

aCute myelOiD leukaemia

leuCemia mielOiDe aCuta ACuTE myELOId LEukAEmIA

Males FeMales


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

20%

CenTre

16%

norTH easT

19%

norTH wesT

23%





aCute myelOiD leukaemia

34

46

27

9

45

32

11

6157





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH





45

35

40

30

25

20

15

10

5

LoW


HigH

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool


aCute myelOiD leukaemiaaCute myelOiD leukaemia




TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAMPUG

SIC

SAR

90 87

45 45

58

47


1820

1012

24

41

20





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16

60%

54%

9 Years losT

7

9 Years losT

27

pool

56% (54-58)

soUTH

57% (53-61)

CenTre

52% (43-59)

norTH easT

59% (55-63)

norTH wesT

54% (51-58)



56%

65%

80%

81%

67%

56%


81%


67%


56%


56%


65%


80%

CHrOniC myelOiD leukaemiaCHrOniC myelOiD leukaemia

leuCemia mielOiDe CrOniCa CHRONIC myELOId LEukAEmIA

10090

b 5-year net Survival (%) by aGe anD GenDer, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (2521 ObSERvEd CASES) Males FeMales


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

57%

CenTre

52%

norTH easT

59%

norTH wesT

54%





86

74

49

21

95

89

79

60

24

95





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH


908070605040






90

50

60

70

80

40

30

20

10


5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool

CHrOniC myelOiD leukaemia CHrOniC myelOiD leukaemia



8188

81 75 76

6769

54

75

65TAA

LOM

LIG

VENEMR

FVG

PIE*UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

48

60

20

36

65

80

56





NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)


15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



diagnosisdiagnosis

0 2 41 3 50 1

0 2 41 3 50 2 41 3 5

0 2 41 3 50 21 3


CanCer

general popUlaTion


diagnosis

Males

FeMales

36 16


10 Years losT

6

16 Years losT

2047%

48%

pool

M 48% (47-49)

F 47% (46-48)

soUTH

M 49% (47-51)

F 48% (46-50)

CenTre

M 42% (39-46)

F 42% (38-46)

norTH easT

M 48% (46-50)


M 48% (47-50)

F 48% (46-50)


80%

67%

48%

48%

54%

68%


80%


67%


48%


48%


54%


68%

10090


leukaemiaSleukaemiaS

leuCemieLEukAEmIAS

Males FeMales


reGiOnS



wiTHoUT daTa


soUTH

M 49%

F 48%

CenTre

M 42%

F 42%

norTH easT

M 48%

F 47%

norTH wesT

M 48%

F 48%

In the CenTre of Italy cancer survival is lower than in the other areas




70

62

46

26

66

68

62

44

25

69





9040 50 60 70 80


maleS & FemaleS

1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

maleS & FemaleS

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

0

maleS & FemaleS

0 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

maleS & FemaleS

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW

maleS & FemaleS

HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH








55

45

50

40

35

5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

Ci 95%



pool


leukaemiaS leukaemiaS


TAA

LOM

LIG

VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

8084

8073 75

6769

606867

38

48

32

43

54

68

48


maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS

maleS




9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

pool

60

50

55

45

40

35

30




Ci 95%



TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN EMRFVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SICSAR

7982 80 75

73

67 6860

74

66


38

5044

31

54

69

48


FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS

FemaleS



9040 50 60 70 80


1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

yea

rs

aGe aT DIaGNOsIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CanCer

alive

oTHer CaUses

norTH wesT

pool

norTH easT

CenTre

soUTH







35

40

45

50


pool

60

Ci 95%



5-Ye

ar

neT

sU

rviv

al

(%)

50

55

45

40

35

30





TAA

LOMLIG

VENEMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUGSIC

SAR

8187

8173

77

6669

60 5869

4345

3337

52

66

47




women survivelonger than men

64%

66%

mALes

FemALes


NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9

A 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (467395 ObSERvEd CASES). CASE-mIx AdjuSTEd


MALESMALES

CenTRe

54% (54-55)

soUTH

51% (51-52)

PooL

54% (53-54)

noRTH eAsT

55% (54-55)

noRTH wesT

54% (53-54)

10090

B 5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL (%) BY AGE, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (467395 ObSERvEd CASES)

SUMMARY mALes, PeRiod oF diAgnosis: 2005-2009

5 YEARS AFTeR diAgnosis

54%

CondiTioned on HAving sURvived 1 yeAR AFTeR diAgnosis

73%

CondiTioned on HAving sURvived 5 yeARs AFTeR diAgnosis

89%



1 YEAR AFTeR diAgnosis

72%


58%


54%

diagnosisdiagnosis

54%0 2 41 3 5

72%0 1

89%0 2 41 3 5

54%0 2 41 3 5

73%0 2 41 3 5

58%0 21 3


19

15 yeARs LosT

9

5 yeARs LosT

CAnCeR

geneRAL PoPULATion


diagnosis

34 14

ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN CANCER)ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN CANCER)

TUTTI I TUMORI ESCLUSI I TUMORI NON MELANOMATOSI DELLA CUTE

ALL CANCERS (buT SkIN CANCER)

women survive longer than men

54%

63%

mALes

FemALes


REGIONS

ABove THe nATionAL meAn

BeLow THe nATionAL meAn

wiTHoUT dATA

ARoUnd THe nATionAL meAn

soUTH

51%

CenTRe

54%

noRTH eAsT

55%

noRTH wesT

54%

In the noRTH and CenTRe of Italy cancer survivalis higher than in the soUTH



63

62

59

44

79

184_191_AIRTUM_SCHEDE 39_40funnel.indd 184 26/04/17 10.34

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES



9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CAnCeR

ALive

oTHeR CAUses

noRTH wesT

PooL

noRTH eAsT

CenTRe

soUTH

5 yeARs AFTeR diAgnosis10 yeARs AFTeR diAgnosis

H TIME TREND OF 5-, 10-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) POOL OF 17 CANCER REGISTRIES. CASE-mIx AdjuSTEd


F CONDITIONAL 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL AFTER SURVIVING 1, 5 YEARS (%) POOL OF 26 CANCER REGISTRIES (367577 ObSERvEd CASES). CASE-mIx AdjuSTEd


C AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%), 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (467395 ObSERvEd CASES). CASE-mIx AdjuSTEd

PooL

E 5-YEAR AGE-STANDARDIZED NET SURVIVAL (%) BY REGION, 2005-2009 POOL OF 40 CANCER REGISTRIES (455846 ObSERvEd CASES). CASE-mIx AdjuSTEd

schede specifiche per tumoreI TUMORI IN ITALIA RAPPORTO AIRTUM 2016 SOPRAVVIVENZA

MALESMALES


ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN CANCER) ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN CANCER)


56

55

54

53

52

51

49

50Ci 95%


Ci 99,8%noRTH wesTnoRTH eAsTCenTResoUTHwith abbreviated region name


58

72

54

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

89 89

73 7474

3945 49

55





64%

66%

mALes

FemALes


NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9


FEMALESFEMALES

PooL

63%(62-63)

soUTH

60%(60-60)

noRTH eAsT

64%(63-64)

CenTRe

63%(63-64)

noRTH wesT

63%(63-63)


63%


78%


90%




79%


67%


63%

diagnosisdiagnosis

63%0 2 41 3 5

79%0 1

90%0 2 41 3 5

63%0 2 41 3 5

78%0 2 41 3 5

67%0 21 3


28

10 yeARs LosT

11

7 yeARs LosT

CAnCeR

geneRAL PoPULATion


diagnosis

38 18

SUMMARY FemALes, PeRiod oF diAgnosis: 2005-2009


10090

B 5-YEAR NET SURVIVAL (%) BY AGE, 2005-2009 POOL OF 42 CANCER REGISTRIES (388959 ObSERvEd CASES



54%

63%

mALes

FemALes

TUTTI I TUMORI ESCLUSI I TUMORI NON MELANOMATOSI DELLA CUTE

ALL CANCERS (buT SkIN CANCER)


REGIONS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

60%

CenTRe

63%

noRTH eAsT

64%

noRTH wesT

63%




81

73

62

42

86


FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES



9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


CAnCeR

ALive

oTHeR CAUses

noRTH wesT

PooL

noRTH eAsT

CenTRe

soUTH

5 yeARs AFTeR diAgnosis10 yeARs AFTeR diAgnosisCANCER



geneRAL PoPULATion





PooL

65

64

63

62

61

60

59

FEMALESFEMALES ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN CANCER)

ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN CANCER)




Ci 95%




67

79

63

TAALOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

90 91 90

78 78 77 7478

5057 58

64





64%

66%

mALes

FemALes


NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9



MALESMALES

CenTRe

51% (51-52)

soUTH

48% (48-49)

PooL

51% (50-51)

noRTH eAsT

52% (51-52)

noRTH wesT

51% (50-51)

10090


SUMMARY mALes, PeRiod oF diAgnosis: 2005-2009


69%


71%


90%




69%


55%


51%

diagnosisdiagnosis

69%0 2 41 3 5

69%0 1

90%0 2 41 3 5

51%0 2 41 3 5

71%0 2 41 3 5

55%0 21 3


CAnCeR

geneRAL PoPULATion


diagnosis

ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDERCANCERS) ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDERCANCERS)

TUTTI I TUMORI ESCLUSI I TUMORI DELLA VESCICA E I NON MELANOMATOSI DELLA CUTE

ALL CANCERS (buT SkIN ANd bLAddER CANCERS)


51%

62%

mALes

FemALes

34 14

9

5 yeARs LosT

19

15 yeARs LosT


REGIONS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

48%

CenTRe

51%

noRTH eAsT

52%

noRTH wesT

51%




61

59

57

40

78


MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES

MALES




9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCeR

ALive

oTHeR CAUses

noRTH wesT

PooL

noRTH eAsT

CenTRe

soUTH









PooL

5-ye

AR

neT

sU

Rviv

AL

(%)

ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDERCANCERS)ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDERCANCERS)



53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46


Ci 95%



55

69

51

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVGPIE*

UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

90 90

72 7271

4752

3642





64%

66%

mALes

FemALes


NORTH WEST


NORTH EAST


CENTRE


SOUTH

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

AGE

GRO

UPS

NET SURVIVAL (%)

15-4

445

-54

55-6

465

-74

75-9

9


FEMALESFEMALES

PooL

62%(62-62)

soUTH

60%(59-60)

noRTH eAsT

63%(63-64)

CenTRe

63%(62-64)

noRTH wesT

63%(62-63)


62%


77%


90%




79%


67%


62%

diagnosisdiagnosis

62%0 2 41 3 5

79%0 1

90%0 2 41 3 5

62%0 2 41 3 5

77%0 2 41 3 5

67%0 21 3


CAnCeR

geneRAL PoPULATion


diagnosis

SUMMARY FemALes, PeRiod oF diAgnosis: 2005-2009


10090


ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDER CANCERS) ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDER CANCERS)

TUTTI I TUMORI ESCLUSI I TUMORI DELLA VESCICA E I NON MELANOMATOSI DELLA CUTE

ALL CANCERS (buT SkIN ANd bLAddER CANCERS)


51%

62%

mALes

FemALes

38 18

28

10 yeARs LosT

11

7 yeARs LosT


REGIONS



wiTHoUT dATA


soUTH

60%

CenTRe

63%

noRTH eAsT

63%

noRTH wesT

63%




81

73

62

42

86


FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES

FEMALES



9040 50 60 70 80 1994-1996 1997-1999 2000-2002 2003-2005 2006-2008 2009-2011

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

YEA

RS

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

30 50 7040 60 80 90

5-YE

AR

CRU

DE

PRO

BABI

LITY

OF

DEA

TH (%

)

AGE AT DIAGNOSIS

100

80

60

40

20

00 1 2 3 4 5

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

5-YE

AR

NET

SU

RVIV

AL

(%)

AFTER 1 YEAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LoW HigH


CAnCeR

ALive

oTHeR CAUses

noRTH wesT

PooL

noRTH eAsT

CenTRe

soUTH




geneRAL PoPULATionCAnCeR

AFTeR 5 yeARs



PooL


5-ye

AR

neT

sU

Rviv

AL

(%)


ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDER CANCERS)ALL CANCERS (BUT SkIN AND BLADDER CANCERS)



65

64

63

62

61

60

59


Ci 95%



67

79

62

TAA

LOM

LIG

VEN

EMR

FVG

PIE*UMB

TOS*

CAM

PUG

SIC

SAR

90 91 90

77 78 77 7478

5763

4956


192_204_AIRTUM_2017.indd 192 26/04/17 10.34

cancer-specific data sheet - registri tumori · cancer-specific data sheet 059_069_airtum_2017.indd...

Documents