1. Cancers
Overview
Overall, cancer is the second most common cause of death in Barnet and across the country.
However, unlike CHD and stroke which are organ specific, there are many types of cancers
which impact differently on organs.1
Overall, cancer is the second most common cause of death in Barnet and across the country.
However, unlike CHD (which only affects the heart) and stroke (which only affects the brain)
there are many types of cancer and different ones affect different organs and their causes and
effects are different.2
For example, in 2004-2007, the total numbers of people in Barnet dying
from some of the more common cancers were as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 The number of people dying from the more common cancers over the four-year
period 2004-2007
Organ Total number of deaths
over 4-year period
2004-2007
Average number of
deaths/year (rounded)
Lung 575 144
Colon or rectum 293 73
Breast 234 59
Prostate 169 42
Bladder 49 12
Cervix 16 4
Source: Office for National Statistics Annual District Mortality Data
The risk we face
As death rates from CVD drop so more people live long enough to develop a cancer: cancer is
thus becoming more common. However, like CVD, death rates from cancer are also dropping.
This is predominantly due to earlier diagnosis, in part because of screening, and because many
(but not all) cancer treatments are now much more effective than they used to be.
There are different risk factors for different cancers which independently or in combination, can
increase an individual’s risk of developing a specific cancer.i,ii
Tobacco use, for example,
increases the risk for pancreatic, kidney and urinary bladder cancers, as well as for the more
familiar lung, colorectal, head and neck and cervical cancers. Higher-than moderate alcohol
intake can increase the risk of breast, oesophageal and head and neck cancer. High dietary fat
and being obese can increase the risk for colon and breast cancer. There is also an increased
risk for colorectal, breast, prostate, ovarian, thyroid and melanoma cancers for people in whom
a first-degree relative has had one of these types of cancer.
1
Most cancers have similar characteristics, i.e. they are abnormalities of cell growth causing the affected tissue
to grow in a relatively uncontrolled way. The majority of cancers spread locally by infiltrating adjacent tissues
and spread distantly by ‘metastatic spread’ through the blood and lymphatic systems. The rate of growth, the
degree of spread and the effect on other parts of the body differs with each type of cancer
2
Most cancers have similar characteristics, i.e. they are abnormalities of cell growth causing the affected tissue
to grow in a relatively uncontrolled way. The majority of cancers spread locally by infiltrating adjacent tissues
and spread distantly by ‘metastatic spread’ through the blood and lymphatic systems. The rate of growth, the
degree of spread and the effect on other parts of the body differs with each type of cancer
Cancers 1

2. The relationship between diversity and deprivation and cancer
There is little reliable data in this country to draw any firm conclusions about differences in
cancer incidence or survival rates amongst people in Black and minority ethnic groups.
However, there is some evidence from studies in the United States of America that some Asian
American subgroups are more likely to develop and to die from some cancers than people in
other ethnic groups.iii
And, for example, whilst large bowel cancer is common in developed
countries its incidence in India is low,iv
yet the incidence and spread of breast cancer has been
shown to be different in people from different ethnic groups in New Zealand.v
In terms of
deprivation, there is evidence that women who live in more deprived communities tend to have
poorer outcomes if they develop breast cancer.vi,vii
There is also evidence to suggest that
differences in breast cancer diagnosis, treatment and survival may be more related to
economic differences than to ethnicity.viii,ix
Various factors have been reported that increase the risk of developing breast cancer. Some
like gender (being female), age (being older), genes (having the BRCA 1 and 2 genes),
ethnicity (being White), and having a family history of breast cancer all increase the risk but
cannot be changed.x
However, lifestyle factors like never given birth, having the first child after
the age of 30 years, which are commoner features amongst women living in more affluent
areas, obesity, high fat diets and inactivity, also increase the risk of breast cancer but can be
changed in many instances.xi,xii
Research shows that cervical cancer and death from the disease is commoner amongst
women living in more deprived areas.xiii
There is also evidence that women from deprived
backgrounds are less likely to attend for cervical screening, and this may be connected with
reduced self-esteem, lower educational attainment and poorer literacy skills.xiv
Women who
smoke (smoking is also more prevalent amongst people in lower socio-economic groups) are
less likely to attend for cervical screening.xv
There do not seem to be any specific associations between cervical cancer and women from
Black and minority ethnic groups. However, there is some evidence that some women from
these groups are likely to be screened more often than others and that others are likely to be
screened less often. Error: Reference source not found
The reasons for this are unclear.
There is also an association between cervical cancer and early age of first sexual intercourse,
having many different sexual partners, having a large number of pregnancies and with
smoking. Error: Reference source not found
Thus, the picture with cancer in terms of deprivation, ethnicity and other factors is complex and
not easy to unravel. It is further complicated when examined at a local level because the
numbers of people with different cancers (even the common ones) are relatively small. This
means that year-to-year variations in the number of people developing cancer are not
necessarily significant: it is the overall trend over several years that is more important.
Figure 1, and figure 21 show the trends in deaths from lung cancer, breast cancer and
colorectal cancer (respectively) in relation to deprivation. This has been done by ranking all the
census superoutput areas in Barnet by deprivation score and then dividing them into three
groups (tertiles) of low, medium and high deprivation, and correlating the deaths occurring in
each of these groupings.
Cancers 2

3. Figure 1: The trend in deaths from lung cancer in people aged under 75 years in Barnet
in areas with different deprivation scores (derived from census superoutput areas)
Source: Office for National Statistics Annual District Mortality Data
Figure 2: The trend in deaths from breast cancer in people aged under 75 years in Barnet
in areas with different deprivation scores (derived from census superoutput areas)
Source: Office for National Statistics Annual District Mortality Data
Cancers 3
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
2004 2005 2006 2007
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
Low Deprivation SOAs
Medium Deprivation SOAs
High Deprivation SOAs
Barnet average
53 57 49 56Number of deaths
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
22.0
24.0
26.0
28.0
30.0
2004 2005 2006 2007
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
Low Deprivation SOAsLow Deprivation SOAs
Medium Deprivation SOAsMedium Deprivation SOAs
High Deprivation SOAsHigh Deprivation SOAs
Barnet averageBarnet average
53 57 49 56Number of deaths
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2004 2005 2006 2007
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
Low Deprivation SOAs
Medium Deprivation SOAs
High Deprivation SOAs
Barnet average
43 29 19 26Number of deaths
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
2004 2005 2006 2007
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
Low Deprivation SOAsLow Deprivation SOAs
Medium Deprivation SOAsMedium Deprivation SOAs
High Deprivation SOAsHigh Deprivation SOAs
Barnet averageBarnet average
43 29 19 26Number of deaths

4. Figure 3: The trend in deaths from colorectal cancer in people aged under 75 years in
Barnet in areas with different deprivation scores (derived from census superoutput
areas)
Source: Office for National Statistics Annual District Mortality Data
In Figure 1, there is a relatively clear trend: people living in the more deprived areas are more
likely to die from lung cancer.
In the pattern is less clear and the numbers are smaller, which can exaggerate year-to-year
differences. However, women in higher socio-economic groups are more likely to develop
breast cancer and this is reflected in these data to some extent.
In Figure 21 it is not possible to discern an obvious trend other than the fact that overall the
Barnet average death rate from colorectal cancer is relatively unchanged over the four years
shown but there seems to be a trend of a decreasing rate amongst those living in the most
affluent areas.
Local targets
In common with other London PCTs, Barnet has agreed to reduce deaths from cancer by
2010/2011 and our trajectory for this is shown in Figure 22.
Like other targets, cancer deaths cannot continue to drop to zero, but, it is reasonable to expect
the NHS to further reduce cancer deaths. This can be achieved through (i) encouraging and
enabling more people to be screened so that some cancers to be diagnosed sooner (when
treatment is likely to be more effective), and (ii) supporting, within the resources available, the
use of more aggressive and effective treatments.3
3
It is important to recognise that many of the new drugs developed to treat cancer do not cure but can, in some
instances, prolong survival times. However, not all prolong survival by much, and many are very expensive. A
balance has to be struck between the wants of individual patients and their relatives and the needs of the wider
population: sometimes the needs of the wider population conflict with the needs of individuals, and the NHS
has a duty to use public money to the maximum advantage of the maximum number of patients
Cancers 4
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
2004 2005 2006 2007
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
Low Deprivation SOAs
Medium Deprivation SOAs
High Deprivation SOAs
Barnet average
40 29 33 36Number of deaths
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
2004 2005 2006 2007
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
2004 2005 2006 2007
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
Low Deprivation SOAsLow Deprivation SOAs
Medium Deprivation SOAsMedium Deprivation SOAs
High Deprivation SOAsHigh Deprivation SOAs
Barnet averageBarnet average
40 29 33 36Number of deaths

5. Figure 4: The trajectory for cancer deaths in Barnet
Source: Barnet PCT Operating Plan
Key things that need to be done
The key activities required are:
 improving the uptake of screening (see section ) for breast and colorectal cancer screening –
the two biggest cancer killers for which population screening is available;
 work with local providers to improve access to services to ensure that people who may have
cancer are investigated and, as necessary, treated, as soon as possible;
 work with local providers to try to improve the availability of clinically and cost-effective
treatments for cancer; and
 continue to encourage people to avoid starting smoking and, for those who do, to encourage
and enable them to quit – whilst stopping smoking will take many years before there is a
detectable drop in deaths from cancers caused by smoking, stopping smoking improves the
effectiveness of many treatments and reduces potential complications of surgery and, by
increasing health generally, contributes to prolonging life.
Screening
Breast cancer screening
Nearly all breast cancers can be treated successfully if detected early, and regular breast
screening with mammography, an x-ray examination of the breast, is reported as the single
most effective way to detect breast cancer at an early, curable stage.xvi
There has been a
dramatic reduction in mortality since the late 1980s when over 15,000 women were dying each
yearxvii
and the data in figure 44 show that this has occurred in Barnet as well.
However, the latest available figures show that breast screening for Barnet PCT residents has
fallen over recent years from 65% in 2005/06 (which was better than the pan-London rate of
62%). This is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: The proportion of women invited for breast screening who attended for
mammography
Cancers 5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
actual trajectoryestimates
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Age-standardiseddeathrateper100,000
actual trajectoryestimates

6. Source: North London Breast Screening Service performance report
The breast screening unit serving Barnet developed significant operational difficulties and was
closed for a while in 2007. Whilst the service is running again and many of the problems have
been dealt with, there is still some degree of backlog to overcome.
This is not the only issue: the data in Figure 5 show the proportion of women who are invited to
attend for screening and who subsequently do so. The service needs to become more
accessible and there is an important need to enable people to understand the importance and
benefit of breast screening and thus why they should attend. Put simply, breast screening
increases the likelihood of a woman who has breast cancer being diagnosed at an earlier stage
and thus being more likely to overcome the disease: earlier treatment is more likely to be
successful.
Colorectal cancer screening
Bowel cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in the UK, and has the
fourth highest incidence of cancer in Barnet PCT.xviii
It is predicted that deaths from bowel
cancer could drop by as much as 15% as a result of screening.xix
Overall, deaths from bowel
cancer in Barnet are declining (see also Figure 21) and this is likely to be due to early
diagnoses being made and to treatment being more effective. Full implementation of the bowel
screening programme in Barnet began in October 2007 and, as a consequence, bowel cancer’s
contribution to the overall cancer mortality rate should start to reduce further.
The bowel cancer screening programme invites men and women aged 60-69 (people aged 70
or over are provided with a testing kit on request) to be screened for bowel cancer every two
years. Testing kits are sent direct to individuals to be used in their homes.
Cancers 6
Proportionofwomeninvited
forscreeningwhoattend(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08
Proportionofwomeninvited
forscreeningwhoattend(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08

7. i
Bal D.G., Nixon D. W.. Foerster S, B,. Brownson RC Cancer Prevention. In GP Murphy, W. Lawrence,
and R E Lenhard Jr (Eds). American Cancer Society Textbook of Clinical Oncology (2nd ed) Atlanta, GA
The American Cancer Society, Inc, 1995
ii
Greenwald, P., Kramer B,S. Weed DL (eds) Cancer prevention and control. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker,
Inc
iii
McCracken M, Olsen M, Chen MS, Jemal A, Thun M et al. Cancer incidence, mortality, and associated risk
factors among Asian Americans of Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese ethnicities.
Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2007; 57(4):190-205
iv
Mohandas KM. Desai DC. Epidemiology of digestive tract cancers in India Large and small bowel. Indian J
Gastroenterology. 1999; 18(3):118-21
v
Weston M K, Hill A. G, Moss DP. Differences in breast cancer biology between ethnic groups in New
Zealand. Abstract number: BS015. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons Annual Scientific
Congress. 2006
vi
Macleod U, Ross S, Twelves C, George D, Gillis C, Watt GMC. Primary and secondary management of
women with early breast cancer from affluent and deprived areas: retrospective review of hospital and
general practice records. Br Med J 2000; 321: 1442-5
vii
Bradley C.J., Given C W, Roberts C.Disparities in cancer diagnosis and survival. Cancer 2001; 91: 178 –
88
viii
McGinnis LS, Menck HR, Eyre HJ, Bland KI Scott – Conner CE et al. National Cancer Data Base survey of
breast cancer management for patients form low income zip codes. Cancer 2000; 88 933 - 45
ix
Bradley C, Given CW, Roberts C. Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Breast Cancer Treatment and
Survival. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94; 7: 490 - 496
x
Yood MU, Johnson CC, Blount A, Abrams J, Wolman E, McCarthy BD, et al. Race and differences in
breast cancer survival in a managed care population. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1999;
91:1487-91
xi
McPherson K, Steel CM, Dixon JM. Breast cancer – epidemiology, risk factors and genetics. Br Med J
2000; 321: 624-8
xii
Hunter DJ and Willett WC: Diet, body size, and breast cancer. Epidemiol Rev 15:110-132, 1993.
xiii
Barnet Health Authority. Cervical Screening Coverage in Barnet: An action plan to improve the coverage
rate. Barnet Health Authority. London 1999.
xiv
Zelenyanszki, C. Psychosocial variables in women attending or non-attending for their cervical screening
test: systemic literature review. September: 2002. PR: 1901 4805
xv
Chiu F. inequalities of access to cancer screening: a literature review: Cancer Screening Series No 1: NHS
Cancer Screening Programmes: December 2003
xvi
Bal D.G., Nixon D. W.. Foerster S, B,. Brownson RC (1995) Cancer Prevention. In GP Murphy, W.
Lawrence, and R E Lenhard Jr(Eds). American Cancer Society Textbook of Clinical Oncology (2nd ed)
Atlanta, GA The American Cancer Society, Inc, p. 42
xvii
Office for National Statistics Twentieth Century Mortality - 95 years of mortality data in England and Wales
by age, sex, year and underlying cause. Office for National Statistics. London. 1997
xviii
Thames Cancer Registry – Cancer in Barnet 1994-2004
xix
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2006. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult
blood test: An update