Disparities in blood cancer survival in the UK 2009–2019: national cohort studies
Résumé fourni par la source
ABSTARCT: BACKGROUND: Blood cancers are among the most common and deadliest in the UK, affecting over 40,000 people annually. Survival varies by subtype, but this is not routinely reported for the UK. This study estimated survival for haematological malignancies in the UK stratified by time period, age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, and rurality. METHODS: Four retrospective cohorts of patients aged 15-99 diagnosed with haematological malignancies (2009-2019) across UK cancer registries were used to estimate 1-, 5-, and 10-year net survival by subtype. RESULTS: We identified 413,286 blood cancer cases. Survival in all blood cancer combined significantly improved in England (3.8%), Northern Ireland (5.1%), and Wales (3%), but not Scotland. Men had ≥3% lower survival than women in many subtypes. Older age and higher deprivation were significantly linked to lower survival. In England, white ethnic groups had ≥3% lower survival than non-white groups for myelodysplastic syndrome, myeloid malignancies, plasma cell neoplasms, myeloproliferative neoplasms. In Wales, rural areas showed ≥3% higher survival than urban and mixed regions for lymphoid malignancies, myeloid malignancies, plasma cell neoplasms, Hodgkin lymphoma, mature B-cell neoplasms, acute myeloid leukaemia. CONCLUSION: Net survival varied markedly by subtype and demographic factors across the UK. Given possible differences in case ascertainment, findings are descriptive and hypothesis‑generating.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Disparities in blood cancer survival in the UK 2009–2019: national cohort studies
- Date Crossref
- 15/04/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.