Original quantitative research – Validation of Canproj for projecting Canadian cancer incidence data

Alain Demers, PhDAuthor reference footnote 1; Zhenguo Qiu, PhDAuthor reference footnote 2; Ron Dewar, MScAuthor reference footnote 3; Amanda Shaw, MScAuthor reference footnote 1

https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.40.9.02

This article has been peer reviewed.

Correspondence: Alain Demers, Public Health Agency of Canada, 785 Carling Avenue (603A1), Ottawa, ON  K1A 0K9; Tel: 613-797-2129; Email: alain.demers@canada.ca

Abstract

Introduction: Cancer projections can provide key information to help prioritize cancer control strategies, allocate resources and evaluate current treatments and interventions. Canproj is a cancer-projection tool that builds on the Nordpred R-package by adding a selection of projection models. The objective of this project was to validate the Canproj R-package for the short-term projection of cancer rates.

Methods: We used national cancer incidence data from 1986 to 2014 from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System and Canadian Cancer Registry. Cross-validation was used to estimate the accuracy of the projections generated by Canproj and relative bias (RB) was used as validation measure. The Canproj automatic model selection decision tree was also assessed.

Results: Five of the six models had mean RB between 5% and 10% and median RB around 5%. For some of the cancer sites that were more difficult to project, a shorter time period improved reliability. The Nordpred model was selected 79% of the time by Canproj automatic model selection although it had the smallest RB only 24% of the time.

Conclusions: The Canproj package was able to provide projections that closely matched the real data for most cancer sites.

Keywords: neoplasms, forecasting, validation studies

Highlights

  • The range of models Canproj offers allows for making reliable projections for most cancer sites.
  • When there were variations in incidence rates, a recent, shorter time period could be used as the projection base to improve the accuracy of the projected incidence rates.
  • For the national dataset, the Nordpred model was the one most often selected by the Canproj decision tree.
  • Nordpred was the model with the smallest relative bias (RB) 24% of the time, nevertheless it was selected by Canproj decision tree 79% of the time.

Introduction

For the past 30 years, the Canadian Cancer Society and the Government of Canada (Public Health Agency of Canada and Statistics Canada) have published an annual comprehensive report, Canadian Cancer Statistics (CCS). The report includes a series of population cancer incidence and mortality counts and rate projections that fill the gap between the latest available year of data and the year the report is released. These projections are a planning and prioritizing resource for stakeholders; they also keep the Canadian population informed on the considerable burden of cancer.

A few projection models have been used over the years to produce the CCS. The Poisson regressionFootnote 1 used from 2003 to 2012 changed to Nordpred in 2011/2012. Nordpred, an R-package that was developed in Norway, makes available one single projection model, the age–period–cohort (APC) model with a drift component.Footnote 2 Nordpred is a well-studied package that has been shown to improve the reliability of cancer projections.Footnote 3Footnote 4Footnote 5Footnote 6Footnote 7

In an effort to further cancer projections, Qiu et al. developed Canproj, which is also an R-package.Footnote 8 Canproj has three key advantages over Nordpred: 1) replacement of the Poisson distribution by the negative-binomial distribution when over-dispersion is present; 2) inclusion of an age–cohort model; and 3) a set of hybrid models that combine the strengths of Poisson or negative-binomial regression, the segmented regression method,Footnote 9 and an average method for projections based on age-specific counts. Some of the features of Canproj were used for the 2017 CCSFootnote 10 while the full package was utilized for the 2019 CCS.

Canproj is a relatively new cancer-projection tool that has neither been extensively used nor validated.Footnote 11Footnote 12 The objective of our project was to validate the national short-term (up to 5 years) cancer incidence projections generated by the Canproj package using Canadian data. Specifically, we compared the outputs of the Canproj projection models to actual data using the holdout cross-validation methodFootnote 13 and graphical representation. We also evaluated the automatic model selection features of Canproj (decision trees) to assess the capacity of these functions to select the best model.

Methods

Data

Cancer incidence data from 1986 to 2014 from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System (NCIRS) and Canadian Cancer Registry (CCR) were used for the analysis.Footnote 14 Data from the province of Quebec were not included since the provincial cancer registry has not submitted new data to the CCR since 2010. The data file used the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s international rules for multiple primary cancers.Footnote 15 Results were tabulated for all cancers combined, by cancer site (the same cancer sites as those included in the CCS annual reports) and sex.Footnote 10 A dataset was created for each combination of sex (n = 2) and cancer type (19 common to males and females plus five sex-specific types: cervix, ovary, uterus, prostate and testis). Datasets contained information by years from 1986 to 2014 and eighteen 5-year age groups (0–4, 5–9, …, 85+). Annual population estimates by geography, age and sex were provided by Statistics Canada with post-censal population estimates based on the 2016 Canadian census.Footnote 16 Inter- and post-censal estimates were adjusted by Statistics Canada for net under-coverage. Rates were age standardized using the direct method and the 2011 Canada population.Footnote 17

Canproj

The Canproj R-package contains several models used to project cancer incidence or mortality data. These include the Nordpred model, which incorporates age, drift, period and cohort effects; the age–cohort model; three hybrid models that incorporate age and potentially period effects (age-specific or all ages); and the 5-year average model (Table 1).Footnote 18

Table 1. Models available in the Canproj R-package and variables included in the models

Table 1. Models available in the Canproj R-package and variables included in the models
ModelFootnote a of Table 1 Model variables
Age Period Cohort Drift
Nordpred Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1
Age-cohort Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1
Hybrid age-specific trendFootnote b of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1
Hybrid age-common trendFootnote c of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1
Hybrid age only (average)Footnote d of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1
5-year averageFootnote e of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1 Footnote of Table 1

The Canproj package uses two decision trees to determine which model is the most appropriate based on the significance of the variables. Alternatively, models can be selected individually. At first, Canproj considers four variables, namely age, period, cohort and a drift parameter; this is the most complex model, and these are the variables Nordpred uses. Canproj first determines if the cohort variable is significant. If it is significant, Canproj determines if the drift parameter is significant. If the cohort variable and the drift parameter are both significant, Canproj selects the Nordpred model to make the projections. If the cohort variable is significant but the drift parameter is not, Canproj selects the age–cohort model.

If the cohort effect is not significant, Canproj selects one of the hybrid models. If the number of cases is too small to run a regression model, a 5-year average is calculated. If the number of cases is big enough, Canproj will fit two models: an “age-common trend” model and an “age-specific trend” model. If the age-specific trend model has a better fit, then this model is selected. If not, the age-common trend model is selected. The slope of the common trend variable is then tested to determine if it differs from zero. If it is not different, then only the age variable is used in the model; if it is, the age + common trend model is used.

Validation

Cross-validation was used to estimate the accuracy of the Canproj-generated projections by using a subset of the data (the training data) and validating the results on the other subset (the independent testing data). This study used the holdout methodFootnote 13 to create the training and the independent testing datasets. Data from 1986 to 2010 (five 5-year periods) were used as the training data, and data from 2011 to 2014 (the last 4 years of data) were used as the independent testing data. The predictions from the training model and the actual data from the last 4 years were compared to evaluate the accuracy of the projection models.

The validation measure we used, the relative bias (RB), compares the expected value generated by the projection models to the observed values in the testing dataset for diagnosis years 2011 to 2014. The RB measures the relative difference in percentage between the expected (or projected) value (E) and the observed value (O).

R B t = E t - Q t O t × 100 , where t = 2011 to 2014

In our case, the “value” investigated is the age-standardized rate.

The RBs were summarized by projection model, cancer type and sex.

We compared the mean and median RBs by model, cancer type and sex over the 4-year projected (testing) period. Median RB indicates the typical performance of a model, whereas mean RB (due to its sensitivity to extreme values) helps reveal models that are typically accurate but occasionally very inaccurate.

Joinpoint analyses

We used Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software version 4.5.0.1 (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA)Footnote 19 to calculate trends in Canadian cancer incidence by type and sex between 1986 and 2010. Joinpoint model estimates were used to calculate the 1986 to 2010 RBs. This measure gives an estimate of the variability of the training data, which we compared to the RB measured on the projected data. The maximum number of joinpoints was set to 4; the minimum number of observations from a joinpoint to either end of the data was set to 3; and the minimum number of observations between two joinpoints was set to 4. Otherwise, the default joinpoint parameters were used. The log-transformed age-standardized rates and associated standard errors input into joinpoint were calculated in statistical package SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Canproj was run using R version 3.5.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and RStudio version 1.1.453 (RStudio Inc., Boston, MA, USA).

Performance indicators

Two indicators were used to highlight which models would likely project rates less reliably. The first was the identification of a joinpoint over the most recent 10-year period in the data used to train the projection models (2001–2010). Recent changes in the trend could indicate that the models will have more difficulty performing reliable projections. We divided the joinpoints between those that happened between 10 to 6 years before the last year of training data available and those that happened 5 to 3 years before the last year of data. Joinpoints were not allowed to occur between 0 and 3 years. In Table 2, yellow cells indicate joinpoints that happened between 2001 and 2005 and orange cells indicate those that happened between 2006 and 2008.

Table 2. 2011–2014 median relative bias (%) by model and cancer type

Table 2. 2011–2014 median relative bias (%) by model and cancer type
Sex Cancer type Model Diagnostic
Nordpred Age–cohort Hybrid 5-year average JPFootnote b of Table 2 RB ratioFootnote e of Table 2 RB (%)
Age-specific trend Age-common trend Age only
Male All cancers 11.0 10.1 5.9 5.6Footnote a of Table 2 7.8 7.5 2007Footnote d of Table 2 5.7Footnote g of Table 2 1.0
Oral 8.8 13.4 14.8 12.7 1.0Footnote a of Table 2 6.3 2003Footnote c of Table 2 0.7 1.3
Esophagus 2.6 2.2Footnote a of Table 2 3.0 2.7 5.9 2.2 2005Footnote c of Table 2 0.8 2.8
Stomach 3.1Footnote a of Table 2 3.8 3.9 3.9 25.2 8.5 1986 1.6 1.9
Colorectal 7.4 7.7 6.4Footnote a of Table 2 8.1 10.2 7.8 2008Footnote d of Table 2 16.0Footnote g of Table 2 0.4
Liver 4.4 4.2 4.8 3.9Footnote a of Table 2 26.2 10.0 1986 1.0 4.0
Pancreas 3.0Footnote a of Table 2 6.9 6.5 5.4 3.1 3.5 1997 2.3Footnote f of Table 2 1.3
Larynx 1.4Footnote a of Table 2 3.6 2.4 2.0 44.0 18.2 1986 0.6 2.4
Lung and bronchus 3.1 1.8 1.9 1.7Footnote a of Table 2 30.2 11.1 1986 1.3 1.3
Melanoma 1.4Footnote a of Table 2 6.1 1.5 4.6 17.6 8.3 1986 0.7 2.0
Breast 4.9 4.3Footnote a of Table 2 6.3 6.0 6.6 6.7 1986 0.6 6.9
Prostate 48.4 90.1 41.4 44.4 33.8 33.1Footnote a of Table 2 2001Footnote c of Table 2 11.2Footnote g of Table 2 2.9
Testis 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3Footnote a of Table 2 13.9 7.2 1986 0.3 4.4
Urinary bladder 10.1 15.9 12.4 14.7 9.8 9.3Footnote a of Table 2 1990 3.5Footnote f of Table 2 2.7
Kidney and renal pelvis 5.0 2.8 2.0 2.0Footnote a of Table 2 9.1 4.8 1998 1.0 1.9
Brain/CNS 4.1 2.9Footnote a of Table 2 4.3 3.4 7.7 5.6 1986 1.5 2.0
Thyroid 3.7Footnote a of Table 2 17.0 13.0 13.0 48.9 27.4 1997 0.8 4.6
Hodgkin lymphoma 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.6 3.4 1.3Footnote a of Table 2 1986 0.5 2.6
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 7.7 7.4 6.6Footnote a of Table 2 7.3 8.5 7.8 2007Footnote d of Table 2 4.4Footnote f of Table 2 1.5
Myeloma 5.2 4.7 5.1 4.6Footnote a of Table 2 10.0 6.8 1986 1.3 3.6
Leukemia 6.2 3.8 6.1 5.2 0.8Footnote a of Table 2 3.5 1994 0.4 2.0
All others 4.0 4.1 2.8 2.8Footnote a of Table 2 4.5 3.6 2003Footnote c of Table 2 2.1Footnote f of Table 2 1.3
Female All cancers 0.9 0.8Footnote a of Table 2 0.8 0.8 3.3 0.9 1986 1.0 0.8
Oral 3.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 1.7Footnote a of Table 2 2.8 1986 0.6 2.9
Esophagus 1.1 1.1 1.5 0.9Footnote a of Table 2 6.8 1.3 1986 0.3 3.4
Stomach 1.3Footnote a of Table 2 2.7 7.2 4.4 20.5 3.5 1992 0.6 2.0
Colorectal 4.0 3.7 2.7Footnote a of Table 2 4.2 8.3 4.9 2000 5.5Footnote g of Table 2 0.5
Liver 5.3 4.8 5.1 4.4Footnote a of Table 2 21.2 8.9 1986 0.7 6.4
Pancreas 4.3 5.1 5.5 4.9 3.5Footnote a of Table 2 4.2 1986 1.4 2.5
Larynx 10.0Footnote a of Table 2 13.6 17.3 15.1 64.1 28.5 1986 1.8 5.5
Lung and bronchus 1.3 1.3Footnote a of Table 2 9.0 4.9 3.9 1.9 2006Footnote d of Table 2 2.1Footnote f of Table 2 0.6
Melanoma 2.8Footnote a of Table 2 8.4 3.5 3.4 16.3 9.3 1992 1.4 2.0
Breast 2.3 3.2 0.7Footnote a of Table 2 1.3 1.9 1.6 1991 0.4 1.9
Cervix uteri 3.4 4.7 1.4Footnote a of Table 2 1.4 22.3 8.6 2006Footnote d of Table 2 0.7 2.1
Uterus 3.1 8.0 3.4 2.6Footnote a of Table 2 10.0 10.0 2005Footnote c of Table 2 1.8 1.5
Ovary 1.1 1.1Footnote a of Table 2 1.2 1.7 9.9 4.7 1986 0.6 1.7
Urinary bladder 14.1 14.2 13.1 14.5 10.1 9.7Footnote a of Table 2 1986 3.1Footnote f of Table 2 3.1
Kidney and renal pelvis 12.0 4.3 4.6 4.3 6.1 4.2Footnote a of Table 2 1986 1.8 2.4
Brain/CNS 5.6 5.3Footnote a of Table 2 5.7 5.5 8.8 6.2 1986 2.2Footnote f of Table 2 2.4
Thyroid 4.5Footnote a of Table 2 6.3 5.4 5.9 50.1 21.7 2005Footnote c of Table 2 2.7Footnote f of Table 2 1.7
Hodgkin lymphoma 10.3 10.9 12.2 11.6 8.0Footnote a of Table 2 10.4 1986 2.4Footnote f of Table 2 3.4
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 5.3 4.9 4.4Footnote a of Table 2 4.9 5.8 6.0 1997 3.9Footnote f of Table 2 1.1
Myeloma 3.8Footnote a of Table 2 4.1 3.9 3.9 6.8 4.2 1986 1.0 3.7
Leukemia 14.3 5.0 4.7 6.8 2.6Footnote a of Table 2 4.8 2001Footnote c of Table 2 1.5 1.7
All others 3.1 4.2 3.6 4.1 3.0Footnote a of Table 2 3.1 2004Footnote c of Table 2 3.5Footnote f of Table 2 0.8

For the second indicator, we used the RB ratio, which is the ratio of RB from 1986 to 2010 to the RB for the 2011–2014 period. We considered that the bias from the projected rates should be at least equal to or greater than the bias in the rates that were used to build the projection models. To obtain the 1986 to 2010 RB, we used the output of the joinpoint analysis. In Table 2, if the 2011–2014 RB was 2 to 5 times higher than the 1986–2010 RB, table cells are in yellow; if the 2011–2014 RB was more than 5 times higher than the 1986–2010 RB, the cells are in orange. These cutoffs were arbitrarily determined after looking at the distribution of the results.

Results

Canproj models

Five of the six models (Nordpred, the age–cohort model, the hybrid common trend model, the hybrid age-specific trend model and the 5-year average model) had mean RB between 5% and 10% and a median RB around 5% (Figure 1). Greater variation was observed in the mean and median RB when the accuracy of the projection models was compared by cancer site (Figure 2). None of the models were good at predicting prostate cancer and a greater predictive variability was apparent for cancers of the thyroid, larynx, bladder, liver and brain/central nervous system (CNS).

Figure 1. Relative bias by projection model for all cancer sites

Figure 1. Relative bias by projection model for all cancer sites

Text description: Figure

Figure 1. Relative bias by projection model for all cancer sites

Figure 1. Relative bias by projection model for all cancer sites
Data Relative bias (%)
Model Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age only Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid common trend 5-year average
Interquartile range 1.875–7.8 2.5–8.825 3.775–19 1.8–8.825 1.8–8.2 2.5–10.325
Median 4.05 4.4 9.4 4.35 4.2 6.05
Minimum 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2
Maximum 16.4 18 43 18.8 17.4 20.6
Outliers 17.3, 18, 18, 18.2, 19.3, 20.7, 23.8, 27.1, 27.4, 38.9, 57.9, 72.2 18.6, 24.1, 24.4, 27.5, 32.8, 37, 73.9, 106.4, 128.4 45.1, 47, 48.1, 49.7, 50.1, 50.5, 50.9, 51.1, 52.4, 58.5, 69.6, 73.4 19.8, 19.9, 20.1, 20.3, 22.2, 22.8, 26.5, 29.2, 33.4, 49.4, 60.9 19, 19.8, 19.9, 22.3, 24.1, 27.7, 31.2, 36.4, 52.5, 63.7 21.1, 21.6, 22, 22.3, 22.6, 22.8, 23.3, 26, 26, 26.2, 26.7, 27.8, 30, 31, 33.9, 40, 49.3

Figure 2. Relative bias by cancer site for all projection models

Figure 2. Relative bias by cancer site for all projection models

Text description: Figure 2

Figure 2. Relative bias by cancer site for all projection models

Figure 2. Relative bias by cancer site for all projection models
Cancer type Relative bias (%)
Interquartile range Median Minimum Maximum Outliers
All 1–7.775 3.2 0.1 16.4
Oral 2.675–9.675 5.15 0 18.1
Esophagus 1.075–6.2 2.35 0.1 12.2 18.8
Stomach 2.475–8.65 4.95 0.1 13.7 18.6, 21.4, 22.3, 25.2, 25.3, 29.3, 32.6
Colorectal 4.625–9.225 7 2.1 14.5
Liver 2.05–15.4 7.6 0.3 29
Pancreas 2.2–7.1 4.15 0.2 11.5
Larynx 3.675–20.3 12.15 0.3 45.1 48.1, 58.5, 69.6, 73.4
Lung 1.3–7.825 3.2 0 15.5 19.9, 28.4, 28.6, 31.9, 40.6
Melanoma 2.625–10.55 5.65 0.1 22.3
Breast 1.475–5.625 2.35 0.3 11.1 12.4, 17.9, 19.8, 20.3
Cervix 1.4–8.675 3.35 0.1 13.4 21.3, 23.3, 27.7
Uterus 3.4–9.9 6.7 0.6 11.9
Ovary 0.875–5.025 1.95 0.1 8.1 11.7, 12.5
Prostate 26.65–58.65 40.4 6.8 128.4
Testis 1.175–6.625 3 0.6 13.9 16.8
Bladder 3.375–23.875 9.8 0.7 32.8
Kidney 3.025–8.05 4.35 0.8 15 20.7
Brain/CNS 2.3–13.7 4.35 0.3 25
Thyroid 5.575–22.925 13.05 0.5 47 49.7, 50.5, 50.9, 51.1, 52.4
HL 1.8–11.375 6.3 0.2 15.1
NHL 3.775–8.8 6.4 0 16.4
Myeloma 1.95–7.85 3.95 0 15.9 17.4, 20.1
Leukemia 3.15–8 4.35 0.3 12.8 15.8, 18
Others 2.175–5.55 3.65 0.2 9.3

A more detailed and slightly different picture emerges when models are graphically compared by type of cancer and sex (Figure 3, Table 2). The performance of all projection models was poor for male all cancer sites combined, male and female colorectal, prostate, male bladder, male and female brain/CNS, female Hodgkin lymphoma and male myeloma. The greater variation observed in Figure 2 for cancers of the liver, larynx and thyroid seems to be due to the inability of a few models to predict rates.

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 1 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 1 of 7)

Text description: Figure 3 (Section 1 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 1 of 7)

All cancers
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 1 of 7) – All cancers
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 581.9 575.4 - - - - - -
1987 591.4 583.6 - - - - - -
1988 596.2 591.9 - - - - - -
1989 586.7 600.4 - - - - - -
1990 595 608.9 - - - - - -
1991 609.1 617.6 - - - - - -
1992 634.6 626.4 - - - - - -
1993 645.2 635.3 - - - - - -
1994 622.5 619.2 - - - - - -
1995 595 603.5 - - - - - -
1996 590.5 588.2 - - - - - -
1997 602.1 596.2 - - - - - -
1998 599.1 604.3 - - - - - -
1999 615.9 612.5 - - - - - -
2000 614.6 611.5 - - - - - -
2001 623.8 610.4 - - - - - -
2002 602.2 609.4 - - - - - -
2003 595.2 608.3 - - - - - -
2004 601.3 607.3 - - - - - -
2005 602.3 606.2 - - - - - -
2006 608 605.2 - - - - - -
2007 613.9 604.1 - - - - - -
2008 590.2 592.7 - - - - - -
2009 582.4 581.4 - - - - - -
2010 570.4 570.3 - - - - - -
2011 575.6 - 606.1 603.1 587.3 586.4 595.4 593.7
2012 545.4 - 610.8 606.7 585.7 584.5 595.4 593.7
2013 559.8 - 615.4 610.3 584.1 582.7 595.4 593.7
2014 530.3 - 617.3 611.6 582.5 580.8 595.4 593.7
Female 1986 418.8 430.8 - - - - - -
1987 430.2 432.1 - - - - - -
1988 443.3 433.5 - - - - - -
1989 431.1 434.8 - - - - - -
1990 434.1 436.2 - - - - - -
1991 440.8 437.5 - - - - - -
1992 444.5 438.9 - - - - - -
1993 442.8 440.3 - - - - - -
1994 439 441.6 - - - - - -
1995 439.4 443 - - - - - -
1996 439 444.4 - - - - - -
1997 446.5 445.8 - - - - - -
1998 451.9 447.2 - - - - - -
1999 454.9 448.6 - - - - - -
2000 452 449.9 - - - - - -
2001 451 451.3 - - - - - -
2002 460 452.8 - - - - - -
2003 447.4 454.2 - - - - - -
2004 451.3 455.6 - - - - - -
2005 458.3 457 - - - - - -
2006 458.9 458.4 - - - - - -
2007 465.1 459.8 - - - - - -
2008 454.9 461.3 - - - - - -
2009 462.6 462.7 - - - - - -
2010 462.7 464.1 - - - - - -
2011 466.3 - 467.7 465.6 465.8 465.9 449.3 460.4
2012 462.6 - 469.9 467.1 467.3 467.4 449.3 460.4
2013 471.9 - 472.2 468.7 468.7 468.9 449.3 460.4
2014 459.1 - 473.7 470.5 470.2 470.4 449.3 460.4
Oral
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 1 of 7) – Oral
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 24.3 25 - - - - - -
1987 23.4 24.4 - - - - - -
1988 24 23.8 - - - - - -
1989 23.4 23.2 - - - - - -
1990 23.2 22.6 - - - - - -
1991 22.9 22 - - - - - -
1992 21.7 21.4 - - - - - -
1993 20.9 20.9 - - - - - -
1994 20.5 20.4 - - - - - -
1995 19.9 19.9 - - - - - -
1996 19.4 19.4 - - - - - -
1997 17.8 18.9 - - - - - -
1998 17.9 18.4 - - - - - -
1999 17.5 17.9 - - - - - -
2000 18.1 17.5 - - - - - -
2001 17.3 17 - - - - - -
2002 16.6 16.6 - - - - - -
2003 16.2 16.2 - - - - - -
2004 16.3 16.3 - - - - - -
2005 16.7 16.4 - - - - - -
2006 15.8 16.5 - - - - - -
2007 17.3 16.6 - - - - - -
2008 16.6 16.8 - - - - - -
2009 16.9 16.9 - - - - - -
2010 16.9 17 - - - - - -
2011 17.7 - 16.4 15.8 15.7 16 17.7 16.7
2012 17.2 - 16.3 15.5 15.2 15.6 17.9 16.7
2013 18.2 - 16.2 15.2 14.9 15.4 17.9 16.7
2014 17.9 - 16.2 15.1 14.7 15.2 17.9 16.7
Female 1986 7.7 7.8 - - - - - -
1987 8 7.8 - - - - - -
1988 7.6 7.7 - - - - - -
1989 7.8 7.7 - - - - - -
1990 8.2 7.6 - - - - - -
1991 7.5 7.6 - - - - - -
1992 7.8 7.6 - - - - - -
1993 7.8 7.5 - - - - - -
1994 7.9 7.5 - - - - - -
1995 7.1 7.4 - - - - - -
1996 7.2 7.4 - - - - - -
1997 7.1 7.3 - - - - - -
1998 6.6 7.3 - - - - - -
1999 6.6 7.2 - - - - - -
2000 7.5 7.2 - - - - - -
2001 7.2 7.1 - - - - - -
2002 7.3 7.1 - - - - - -
2003 6.4 7 - - - - - -
2004 6.7 7 - - - - - -
2005 6.9 7 - - - - - -
2006 6.9 6.9 - - - - - -
2007 7.2 6.9 - - - - - -
2008 6.9 6.8 - - - - - -
2009 7.2 6.8 - - - - - -
2010 6.8 6.7 - - - - - -
2011 7.1 - 7 6.9 6.9 6.9 7 7
2012 6.6 - 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 7 7
2013 7.2 - 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.9 7 7
2014 7.1 - 6.9 6.8 6.8 6.9 7 7
Esophagus
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 1 of 7) – Esophagus
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 7.7 7.8 - - - - - -
1987 8.5 7.8 - - - - - -
1988 7.5 7.8 - - - - - -
1989 7.6 7.9 - - - - - -
1990 7.5 7.9 - - - - - -
1991 8.1 7.9 - - - - - -
1992 8.3 7.9 - - - - - -
1993 7.8 8 - - - - - -
1994 8.3 8 - - - - - -
1995 7.7 8 - - - - - -
1996 7.8 8 - - - - - -
1997 8.3 8.1 - - - - - -
1998 7.9 8.1 - - - - - -
1999 7.8 8.1 - - - - - -
2000 8.5 8.1 - - - - - -
2001 7.7 8.1 - - - - - -
2002 8.1 8.2 - - - - - -
2003 8.7 8.2 - - - - - -
2004 8.4 8.2 - - - - - -
2005 8.1 8.2 - - - - - -
2006 8.3 8.5 - - - - - -
2007 8.7 8.7 - - - - - -
2008 9 8.9 - - - - - -
2009 9.4 9.2 - - - - - -
2010 9.3 9.5 - - - - - -
2011 9 - 9.2 9 9.2 9.1 8.6 8.8
2012 9.4 - 9.2 9 9.2 9 8.3 8.8
2013 9 - 9.3 9 9.3 9.1 8.3 8.8
2014 8.6 - 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.2 8.3 8.8
Female 1986 2.7 2.8 - - - - - -
1987 2.6 2.8 - - - - - -
1988 2.6 2.8 - - - - - -
1989 2.8 2.8 - - - - - -
1990 2.7 2.8 - - - - - -
1991 3 2.7 - - - - - -
1992 2.7 2.7 - - - - - -
1993 2.7 2.7 - - - - - -
1994 2.7 2.7 - - - - - -
1995 2.6 2.7 - - - - - -
1996 3 2.7 - - - - - -
1997 2.9 2.6 - - - - - -
1998 2.4 2.6 - - - - - -
1999 2.6 2.6 - - - - - -
2000 2.7 2.6 - - - - - -
2001 2.4 2.6 - - - - - -
2002 2.7 2.6 - - - - - -
2003 2.7 2.6 - - - - - -
2004 2.4 2.5 - - - - - -
2005 2.5 2.5 - - - - - -
2006 2.5 2.5 - - - - - -
2007 2.4 2.5 - - - - - -
2008 2.3 2.5 - - - - - -
2009 2.7 2.5 - - - - - -
2010 2.4 2.5 - - - - - -
2011 2.5 - 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5
2012 2.4 - 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5
2013 2.4 - 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5
2014 2.2 - 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5
Stomach
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 1 of 7) – Stomach
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 22.5 22 - - - - - -
1987 21.9 21.5 - - - - - -
1988 21.7 21 - - - - - -
1989 21.7 20.5 - - - - - -
1990 20.4 20.1 - - - - - -
1991 19.4 19.6 - - - - - -
1992 18.4 19.2 - - - - - -
1993 18.7 18.7 - - - - - -
1994 18 18.3 - - - - - -
1995 16.5 17.9 - - - - - -
1996 17.1 17.5 - - - - - -
1997 16.9 17.1 - - - - - -
1998 16.3 16.7 - - - - - -
1999 16.2 16.3 - - - - - -
2000 16 15.9 - - - - - -
2001 15.3 15.6 - - - - - -
2002 14.1 15.2 - - - - - -
2003 15.4 14.9 - - - - - -
2004 14.7 14.5 - - - - - -
2005 14.4 14.2 - - - - - -
2006 13.9 13.9 - - - - - -
2007 14.2 13.6 - - - - - -
2008 13.8 13.3 - - - - - -
2009 13.1 13 - - - - - -
2010 12.3 12.7 - - - - - -
2011 12.4 - 12.8 12.7 12.4 12.6 15 13.6
2012 11.9 - 12.6 12.5 12.1 12.5 15.8 13.6
2013 12.6 - 12.4 12.2 11.9 12.3 15.8 13.6
2014 12.6 - 12.3 12 11.6 12 15.8 13.6
Female 1986 10.7 10.5 - - - - - -
1987 10.1 10 - - - - - -
1988 8.9 9.5 - - - - - -
1989 9.4 9.1 - - - - - -
1990 8.8 8.7 - - - - - -
1991 8.2 8.3 - - - - - -
1992 8.1 8 - - - - - -
1993 7.7 7.8 - - - - - -
1994 8.2 7.7 - - - - - -
1995 7.6 7.5 - - - - - -
1996 7.9 7.4 - - - - - -
1997 6.9 7.3 - - - - - -
1998 7.1 7.2 - - - - - -
1999 6.6 7 - - - - - -
2000 7 6.9 - - - - - -
2001 6.7 6.8 - - - - - -
2002 6.5 6.7 - - - - - -
2003 6.3 6.6 - - - - - -
2004 6.6 6.4 - - - - - -
2005 6.1 6.3 - - - - - -
2006 6.2 6.2 - - - - - -
2007 6.4 6.1 - - - - - -
2008 6.1 6 - - - - - -
2009 6.1 5.9 - - - - - -
2010 5.7 5.8 - - - - - -
2011 6 - 6 5.8 5.6 5.7 6.7 6.1
2012 6 - 6 5.7 5.4 5.6 7.1 6.1
2013 5.8 - 5.9 5.6 5.3 5.5 7.1 6.1
2014 5.5 - 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.4 7.1 6.1

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 2 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 2 of 7)

Text description: Figure 3 (Section 2 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 2 of 7)

Colorectal
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 2 of 7) – Colorectal
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 83.6 84.7 - - - - - -
1987 84.5 84.1 - - - - - -
1988 83.6 83.6 - - - - - -
1989 83 83 - - - - - -
1990 82.6 82.5 - - - - - -
1991 81.3 81.9 - - - - - -
1992 83.3 81.4 - - - - - -
1993 80.2 80.8 - - - - - -
1994 81.6 80.3 - - - - - -
1995 79.5 79.7 - - - - - -
1996 77.5 79.2 - - - - - -
1997 78.4 78.7 - - - - - -
1998 80.9 80.1 - - - - - -
1999 81.4 81.6 - - - - - -
2000 82.8 83.1 - - - - - -
2001 82 81.8 - - - - - -
2002 80.3 80.5 - - - - - -
2003 78.4 79.3 - - - - - -
2004 80.3 79.5 - - - - - -
2005 80.6 79.7 - - - - - -
2006 79.5 80 - - - - - -
2007 80 80.2 - - - - - -
2008 80.1 80.4 - - - - - -
2009 77.4 76.8 - - - - - -
2010 73.1 73.4 - - - - - -
2011 74.1 - 78 78.1 77.6 78.7 80 78.3
2012 72 - 78 78.2 77.4 78.6 80 78.3
2013 73.2 - 78 78.2 77.2 78.4 80 78.3
2014 69.9 - 78 78.2 77 78.3 80 78.3
Female 1986 61.6 62 - - - - - -
1987 61.2 61.1 - - - - - -
1988 60.5 60.3 - - - - - -
1989 59.2 59.4 - - - - - -
1990 58.6 58.6 - - - - - -
1991 58.5 57.8 - - - - - -
1992 56.5 57 - - - - - -
1993 56.6 56.2 - - - - - -
1994 55.1 55.4 - - - - - -
1995 54.7 54.6 - - - - - -
1996 53.6 53.9 - - - - - -
1997 53.9 54.6 - - - - - -
1998 56.7 55.3 - - - - - -
1999 55.9 56.1 - - - - - -
2000 57.1 56.8 - - - - - -
2001 56.4 56.3 - - - - - -
2002 55.6 55.8 - - - - - -
2003 54.3 55.4 - - - - - -
2004 54.7 54.9 - - - - - -
2005 54.8 54.4 - - - - - -
2006 53.7 53.9 - - - - - -
2007 53.9 53.5 - - - - - -
2008 53.1 53 - - - - - -
2009 52.6 52.6 - - - - - -
2010 52 52.1 - - - - - -
2011 51.3 - 52.9 52.8 52.5 53.2 55.1 53.3
2012 51.2 - 52.9 52.8 52.3 53 55.1 53.3
2013 50.5 - 52.8 52.7 52 52.9 55.1 53.3
2014 48.2 - 52.8 52.6 51.8 52.7 55.1 53.3
Liver
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 2 of 7) – Liver
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 4.3 3.8 - - - - - -
1987 3.8 3.9 - - - - - -
1988 4 4.1 - - - - - -
1989 4.1 4.2 - - - - - -
1990 4.2 4.4 - - - - - -
1991 4.5 4.5 - - - - - -
1992 4.2 4.7 - - - - - -
1993 4.9 4.8 - - - - - -
1994 5.8 5 - - - - - -
1995 5.1 5.2 - - - - - -
1996 5 5.4 - - - - - -
1997 5.9 5.5 - - - - - -
1998 5.2 5.7 - - - - - -
1999 5.6 5.9 - - - - - -
2000 6 6.1 - - - - - -
2001 6.8 6.4 - - - - - -
2002 6.8 6.6 - - - - - -
2003 6.5 6.8 - - - - - -
2004 6.8 7 - - - - - -
2005 7.3 7.3 - - - - - -
2006 7.8 7.5 - - - - - -
2007 8.2 7.8 - - - - - -
2008 7.9 8.1 - - - - - -
2009 8.6 8.4 - - - - - -
2010 8.3 8.7 - - - - - -
2011 9.1 - 8.9 8.9 9 8.8 7 8
2012 9.2 - 9.2 9.1 9.3 9 6.5 8
2013 8.8 - 9.5 9.4 9.6 9.2 6.3 8
2014 8.2 - 9.7 9.6 9.8 9.4 6.3 8
Female 1986 1.3 1.4 - - - - - -
1987 1.5 1.4 - - - - - -
1988 1.5 1.4 - - - - - -
1989 1.6 1.5 - - - - - -
1990 1.4 1.5 - - - - - -
1991 1.3 1.5 - - - - - -
1992 1.8 1.6 - - - - - -
1993 1.6 1.6 - - - - - -
1994 1.7 1.6 - - - - - -
1995 1.6 1.7 - - - - - -
1996 1.7 1.7 - - - - - -
1997 1.6 1.7 - - - - - -
1998 2 1.8 - - - - - -
1999 1.6 1.8 - - - - - -
2000 2 1.9 - - - - - -
2001 1.9 1.9 - - - - - -
2002 1.7 1.9 - - - - - -
2003 1.9 2 - - - - - -
2004 1.9 2 - - - - - -
2005 2 2.1 - - - - - -
2006 2.2 2.1 - - - - - -
2007 2.3 2.1 - - - - - -
2008 2.4 2.2 - - - - - -
2009 2.1 2.2 - - - - - -
2010 2.2 2.3 - - - - - -
2011 2.4 - 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2 2.2
2012 2.6 - 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 2.2
2013 2.2 - 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.2
2014 2.4 - 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.2
Pancreas
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 2 of 7) – Pancreas
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 16.2 15.8 - - - - - -
1987 14.9 15.5 - - - - - -
1988 16 15.3 - - - - - -
1989 14.2 15.1 - - - - - -
1990 14.8 14.8 - - - - - -
1991 14.8 14.6 - - - - - -
1992 14.6 14.4 - - - - - -
1993 14.1 14.1 - - - - - -
1994 13.7 13.9 - - - - - -
1995 13.8 13.7 - - - - - -
1996 13.4 13.5 - - - - - -
1997 13.2 13.3 - - - - - -
1998 13.4 13.3 - - - - - -
1999 13.5 13.3 - - - - - -
2000 13.3 13.2 - - - - - -
2001 13.3 13.2 - - - - - -
2002 12.4 13.2 - - - - - -
2003 13.1 13.2 - - - - - -
2004 13 13.1 - - - - - -
2005 13.4 13.1 - - - - - -
2006 12.9 13.1 - - - - - -
2007 13.9 13.1 - - - - - -
2008 12.9 13.1 - - - - - -
2009 13.3 13 - - - - - -
2010 12.5 13 - - - - - -
2011 13.5 - 13.3 12.7 12.8 12.9 13.2 13.1
2012 13.7 - 13.4 12.6 12.7 12.8 13.4 13.1
2013 14 - 13.4 12.5 12.6 12.8 13.4 13.1
2014 12.9 - 13.5 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.4 13.1
Female 1986 11.2 11.3 - - - - - -
1987 12.1 11.2 - - - - - -
1988 11.7 11.2 - - - - - -
1989 10.4 11.2 - - - - - -
1990 10.9 11.2 - - - - - -
1991 11 11.1 - - - - - -
1992 11.2 11.1 - - - - - -
1993 11.4 11.1 - - - - - -
1994 11.5 11.1 - - - - - -
1995 10.3 11 - - - - - -
1996 11 11 - - - - - -
1997 11.1 11 - - - - - -
1998 10.9 11 - - - - - -
1999 10.8 10.9 - - - - - -
2000 10.4 10.9 - - - - - -
2001 10.3 10.9 - - - - - -
2002 10.9 10.9 - - - - - -
2003 10.8 10.8 - - - - - -
2004 11.2 10.8 - - - - - -
2005 11.3 10.8 - - - - - -
2006 10.4 10.8 - - - - - -
2007 11.1 10.8 - - - - - -
2008 10.8 10.7 - - - - - -
2009 11 10.7 - - - - - -
2010 10.5 10.7 - - - - - -
2011 11.1 - 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.9 10.8
2012 11.5 - 10.8 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.9 10.8
2013 10.8 - 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.7 10.9 10.8
2014 9.8 - 10.8 10.7 10.6 10.7 10.9 10.8
Larynx
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 2 of 7) – Larynx
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 9.8 10.2 - - - - - -
1987 9.8 9.9 - - - - - -
1988 9.5 9.6 - - - - - -
1989 9.3 9.4 - - - - - -
1990 8.9 9.1 - - - - - -
1991 9.5 8.9 - - - - - -
1992 9 8.6 - - - - - -
1993 8.3 8.4 - - - - - -
1994 8 8.2 - - - - - -
1995 8 8 - - - - - -
1996 8 7.8 - - - - - -
1997 7.7 7.5 - - - - - -
1998 7.6 7.3 - - - - - -
1999 7 7.1 - - - - - -
2000 6.7 7 - - - - - -
2001 6.9 6.8 - - - - - -
2002 6.5 6.6 - - - - - -
2003 6.1 6.4 - - - - - -
2004 6.2 6.2 - - - - - -
2005 6.2 6.1 - - - - - -
2006 5.3 5.9 - - - - - -
2007 5.9 5.8 - - - - - -
2008 5.6 5.6 - - - - - -
2009 5.4 5.4 - - - - - -
2010 5.5 5.3 - - - - - -
2011 5.3 - 5 5.2 5.2 5 6.4 5.6
2012 4.8 - 4.9 5 5 4.8 6.9 5.6
2013 4.7 - 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.7 6.9 5.6
2014 4.6 - 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.5 6.9 5.6
Female 1986 1.5 1.7 - - - - - -
1987 1.6 1.7 - - - - - -
1988 1.6 1.7 - - - - - -
1989 1.6 1.6 - - - - - -
1990 1.4 1.6 - - - - - -
1991 1.7 1.5 - - - - - -
1992 1.5 1.5 - - - - - -
1993 1.4 1.5 - - - - - -
1994 1.5 1.4 - - - - - -
1995 1.6 1.4 - - - - - -
1996 1.3 1.3 - - - - - -
1997 1.5 1.3 - - - - - -
1998 1.4 1.3 - - - - - -
1999 1.2 1.2 - - - - - -
2000 1.1 1.2 - - - - - -
2001 1.1 1.2 - - - - - -
2002 1.1 1.2 - - - - - -
2003 1.3 1.1 - - - - - -
2004 1.2 1.1 - - - - - -
2005 1 1.1 - - - - - -
2006 0.9 1 - - - - - -
2007 1.1 1 - - - - - -
2008 1 1 - - - - - -
2009 0.9 1 - - - - - -
2010 0.9 0.9 - - - - - -
2011 1 - 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1
2012 0.8 - 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.2 1
2013 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.2 1
2014 0.7 - 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.2 1

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 3 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 3 of 7)

Text description: Figure 3 (Section 3 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 3 of 7)

Lung and bronchus
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 3 of 7) – Lung and bronchus
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 117 119.6 - - - - - -
1987 115.4 117.4 - - - - - -
1988 116.2 115.2 - - - - - -
1989 113.3 113 - - - - - -
1990 112.5 110.9 - - - - - -
1991 109.2 108.9 - - - - - -
1992 109.6 106.8 - - - - - -
1993 108 104.8 - - - - - -
1994 101.9 102.9 - - - - - -
1995 101.2 101 - - - - - -
1996 98.8 99.1 - - - - - -
1997 94.6 97.2 - - - - - -
1998 95.5 95.4 - - - - - -
1999 95.5 93.6 - - - - - -
2000 90.2 91.9 - - - - - -
2001 89.5 90.2 - - - - - -
2002 87.1 88.5 - - - - - -
2003 84.9 86.8 - - - - - -
2004 84.4 85.2 - - - - - -
2005 84 83.6 - - - - - -
2006 82.8 82.1 - - - - - -
2007 82.5 80.5 - - - - - -
2008 78 79 - - - - - -
2009 78.7 77.6 - - - - - -
2010 75.7 76.1 - - - - - -
2011 73.1 - 72.2 73.1 74.8 73.3 94 80.1
2012 73.2 - 69.7 71 73.5 71.7 94 80.1
2013 71.2 - 67.3 68.9 72.2 70.2 94 80.1
2014 66.8 - 65.8 67.3 70.9 68.8 94 80.1
Female 1986 42.6 43.4 - - - - - -
1987 44.8 44.5 - - - - - -
1988 46.8 45.7 - - - - - -
1989 46.8 47 - - - - - -
1990 48 48.2 - - - - - -
1991 48.7 49.5 - - - - - -
1992 51.7 50.9 - - - - - -
1993 52.4 52.2 - - - - - -
1994 50.9 52.8 - - - - - -
1995 53.1 53.3 - - - - - -
1996 54.4 53.9 - - - - - -
1997 54.3 54.5 - - - - - -
1998 56.7 55.1 - - - - - -
1999 55.8 55.7 - - - - - -
2000 57.3 56.3 - - - - - -
2001 57.1 56.9 - - - - - -
2002 57.1 57.5 - - - - - -
2003 56.5 58.1 - - - - - -
2004 57.7 58.7 - - - - - -
2005 59.9 59.3 - - - - - -
2006 60 60 - - - - - -
2007 59.9 59.6 - - - - - -
2008 59.2 59.2 - - - - - -
2009 59.1 58.8 - - - - - -
2010 58 58.4 - - - - - -
2011 57.6 - 58.8 58.9 62.6 60.6 55.9 59.3
2012 59 - 58.7 58.9 63.4 61 55.9 59.3
2013 58.8 - 58.6 58.8 64.3 61.5 55.9 59.3
2014 56.4 - 58.2 58.5 65.1 62 55.9 59.3
Melanoma
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 3 of 7) – Melanoma
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 13 13.2 - - - - - -
1987 14 13.5 - - - - - -
1988 15.1 13.8 - - - - - -
1989 13.5 14.1 - - - - - -
1990 14.7 14.4 - - - - - -
1991 13.2 14.7 - - - - - -
1992 14.7 15 - - - - - -
1993 15 15.3 - - - - - -
1994 15.6 15.6 - - - - - -
1995 16.1 15.9 - - - - - -
1996 16 16.3 - - - - - -
1997 16.6 16.6 - - - - - -
1998 16.2 17 - - - - - -
1999 18.8 17.3 - - - - - -
2000 18 17.7 - - - - - -
2001 18.6 18 - - - - - -
2002 17.8 18.4 - - - - - -
2003 18.7 18.8 - - - - - -
2004 18.7 19.2 - - - - - -
2005 18.7 19.6 - - - - - -
2006 20.5 20 - - - - - -
2007 20.3 20.4 - - - - - -
2008 21 20.8 - - - - - -
2009 21.8 21.3 - - - - - -
2010 21.5 21.7 - - - - - -
2011 22.1 - 22.1 21.1 22.3 21.3 19.1 20.7
2012 21.4 - 22.5 21.2 22.8 21.4 18.3 20.7
2013 23.1 - 22.8 21.2 23.3 21.7 18.3 20.7
2014 23.4 - 23 21.3 23.9 22 18.3 20.7
Female 1986 11.6 12.3 - - - - - -
1987 12.6 12.2 - - - - - -
1988 12.8 12.1 - - - - - -
1989 12 12 - - - - - -
1990 11.5 12 - - - - - -
1991 12 11.9 - - - - - -
1992 11.5 11.8 - - - - - -
1993 12.3 12 - - - - - -
1994 12.1 12.2 - - - - - -
1995 12.7 12.5 - - - - - -
1996 13.1 12.7 - - - - - -
1997 13 12.9 - - - - - -
1998 12.9 13.2 - - - - - -
1999 13.7 13.4 - - - - - -
2000 13.5 13.6 - - - - - -
2001 14 13.9 - - - - - -
2002 13.8 14.1 - - - - - -
2003 13.7 14.4 - - - - - -
2004 14.5 14.7 - - - - - -
2005 14.7 14.9 - - - - - -
2006 15.1 15.2 - - - - - -
2007 16 15.5 - - - - - -
2008 16 15.8 - - - - - -
2009 16.5 16.1 - - - - - -
2010 16.1 16.3 - - - - - -
2011 17 - 16.8 15.9 16.4 16.4 14.8 15.7
2012 16.3 - 17.1 15.9 16.6 16.6 14.3 15.7
2013 18.4 - 17.4 15.8 16.8 16.8 14.3 15.7
2014 17.7 - 17.6 15.9 17.1 17.1 14.3 15.7
Breast
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 3 of 7) – Breast
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 1 1 - - - - - -
1987 1 1.1 - - - - - -
1988 1.2 1.1 - - - - - -
1989 1.1 1.1 - - - - - -
1990 1 1.1 - - - - - -
1991 1 1.1 - - - - - -
1992 1 1.1 - - - - - -
1993 1.1 1.1 - - - - - -
1994 1 1.1 - - - - - -
1995 1 1.1 - - - - - -
1996 1 1.1 - - - - - -
1997 1.2 1.1 - - - - - -
1998 1.2 1.2 - - - - - -
1999 1.5 1.2 - - - - - -
2000 1.1 1.2 - - - - - -
2001 1.3 1.2 - - - - - -
2002 1.2 1.2 - - - - - -
2003 1.5 1.2 - - - - - -
2004 1.2 1.2 - - - - - -
2005 1.2 1.2 - - - - - -
2006 1.1 1.2 - - - - - -
2007 1.2 1.3 - - - - - -
2008 1 1.3 - - - - - -
2009 1.3 1.3 - - - - - -
2010 1.3 1.3 - - - - - -
2011 1.2 - 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
2012 1.3 - 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
2013 1.1 - 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
2014 1.3 - 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
Female 1986 114.5 116.5 - - - - - -
1987 118 119.7 - - - - - -
1988 129.1 123 - - - - - -
1989 126.6 126.4 - - - - - -
1990 127.2 129.9 - - - - - -
1991 133.9 133.6 - - - - - -
1992 134.7 133.1 - - - - - -
1993 130.3 132.7 - - - - - -
1994 129.4 132.3 - - - - - -
1995 129 131.9 - - - - - -
1996 129 131.5 - - - - - -
1997 134.9 131.1 - - - - - -
1998 133.1 130.7 - - - - - -
1999 136.6 130.2 - - - - - -
2000 130 129.8 - - - - - -
2001 128.9 129.4 - - - - - -
2002 133.4 129 - - - - - -
2003 125.1 128.6 - - - - - -
2004 125.6 128.2 - - - - - -
2005 126.7 127.8 - - - - - -
2006 126.2 127.4 - - - - - -
2007 126.9 127 - - - - - -
2008 123.6 126.6 - - - - - -
2009 126.6 126.2 - - - - - -
2010 128.7 125.8 - - - - - -
2011 129.5 - 127.3 128 125.8 126.4 126.9 126.5
2012 124.7 - 127.5 128.5 125.6 126.3 126.9 126.5
2013 124.9 - 127.8 129.1 125.4 126.2 126.9 126.5
2014 124.3 - 127.9 129.2 125.2 126 126.9 126.5
Cervix uteri
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 3 of 7) – Cervix uteri
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 - - - - - - - -
1987 - - - - - - - -
1988 - - - - - - - -
1989 - - - - - - - -
1990 - - - - - - - -
1991 - - - - - - - -
1992 - - - - - - - -
1993 - - - - - - - -
1994 - - - - - - - -
1995 - - - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - - - -
1997 - - - - - - - -
1998 - - - - - - - -
1999 - - - - - - - -
2000 - - - - - - - -
2001 - - - - - - - -
2002 - - - - - - - -
2003 - - - - - - - -
2004 - - - - - - - -
2005 - - - - - - - -
2006 - - - - - - - -
2007 - - - - - - - -
2008 - - - - - - - -
2009 - - - - - - - -
2010 - - - - - - - -
2011 - - - - - - - -
2012 - - - - - - - -
2013 - - - - - - - -
2014 - - - - - - - -
Female 1986 12.4 12.5 - - - - - -
1987 11.9 12.2 - - - - - -
1988 11.6 12 - - - - - -
1989 11.4 11.7 - - - - - -
1990 12.2 11.5 - - - - - -
1991 11 11.3 - - - - - -
1992 11.2 11 - - - - - -
1993 11 10.8 - - - - - -
1994 10.5 10.6 - - - - - -
1995 10.6 10.4 - - - - - -
1996 10.6 10.2 - - - - - -
1997 9.8 10 - - - - - -
1998 9.7 9.8 - - - - - -
1999 9.7 9.6 - - - - - -
2000 9.3 9.4 - - - - - -
2001 9 9.2 - - - - - -
2002 9 9 - - - - - -
2003 8.9 8.8 - - - - - -
2004 8.6 8.6 - - - - - -
2005 8.1 8.5 - - - - - -
2006 8.1 8.3 - - - - - -
2007 8.7 8.4 - - - - - -
2008 8.3 8.5 - - - - - -
2009 8.8 8.5 - - - - - -
2010 8.4 8.6 - - - - - -
2011 8.2 - 12.4 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.4 12.5
2012 7.8 - 11.9 12.2 11.9 12.2 11.9 12.2
2013 7.7 - 11.6 12 11.6 12 11.6 12
2014 7.4 - 11.4 11.7 11.4 11.7 11.4 11.7

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 4 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 4 of 7)

Text description: Figure 3 (Section 4 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 4 of 7)

Uterus
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 4 of 7) – Uterus
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 - - - - - - - -
1987 - - - - - - - -
1988 - - - - - - - -
1989 - - - - - - - -
1990 - - - - - - - -
1991 - - - - - - - -
1992 - - - - - - - -
1993 - - - - - - - -
1994 - - - - - - - -
1995 - - - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - - - -
1997 - - - - - - - -
1998 - - - - - - - -
1999 - - - - - - - -
2000 - - - - - - - -
2001 - - - - - - - -
2002 - - - - - - - -
2003 - - - - - - - -
2004 - - - - - - - -
2005 - - - - - - - -
2006 - - - - - - - -
2007 - - - - - - - -
2008 - - - - - - - -
2009 - - - - - - - -
2010 - - - - - - - -
2011 - - - - - - - -
2012 - - - - - - - -
2013 - - - - - - - -
2014 - - - - - - - -
Female 1986 25.2 25.3 - - - - - -
1987 27.1 25.4 - - - - - -
1988 27.2 25.5 - - - - - -
1989 24.3 25.5 - - - - - -
1990 24.8 25.6 - - - - - -
1991 25.3 25.7 - - - - - -
1992 25.1 25.7 - - - - - -
1993 26.5 25.8 - - - - - -
1994 25.3 25.9 - - - - - -
1995 24.6 25.9 - - - - - -
1996 25.8 26 - - - - - -
1997 25.9 26.1 - - - - - -
1998 26 26.1 - - - - - -
1999 26 26.2 - - - - - -
2000 26.6 26.3 - - - - - -
2001 26.1 26.3 - - - - - -
2002 27.1 26.4 - - - - - -
2003 26.5 26.5 - - - - - -
2004 26.8 26.5 - - - - - -
2005 26.4 26.6 - - - - - -
2006 27.7 27.3 - - - - - -
2007 28.5 28 - - - - - -
2008 28 28.8 - - - - - -
2009 29.5 29.6 - - - - - -
2010 30.7 30.4 - - - - - -
2011 31.7 - 30.4 29.1 30.4 31.1 28.5 28.5
2012 32.4 - 31 29.1 30.9 32 28.5 28.5
2013 31.7 - 31.5 29.2 31.5 32.8 28.5 28.5
2014 31.2 - 32 29.4 32 33.6 28.5 28.5
Ovary
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 4 of 7) – Ovary
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 - - - - - - - -
1987 - - - - - - - -
1988 - - - - - - - -
1989 - - - - - - - -
1990 - - - - - - - -
1991 - - - - - - - -
1992 - - - - - - - -
1993 - - - - - - - -
1994 - - - - - - - -
1995 - - - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - - - -
1997 - - - - - - - -
1998 - - - - - - - -
1999 - - - - - - - -
2000 - - - - - - - -
2001 - - - - - - - -
2002 - - - - - - - -
2003 - - - - - - - -
2004 - - - - - - - -
2005 - - - - - - - -
2006 - - - - - - - -
2007 - - - - - - - -
2008 - - - - - - - -
2009 - - - - - - - -
2010 - - - - - - - -
2011 - - - - - - - -
2012 - - - - - - - -
2013 - - - - - - - -
2014 - - - - - - - -
Female 1986 16.8 17.1 - - - - - -
1987 17.4 17 - - - - - -
1988 17.8 16.9 - - - - - -
1989 16.8 16.7 - - - - - -
1990 16.9 16.6 - - - - - -
1991 16.7 16.5 - - - - - -
1992 16 16.3 - - - - - -
1993 16 16.2 - - - - - -
1994 15.2 16.1 - - - - - -
1995 16.4 15.9 - - - - - -
1996 15 15.8 - - - - - -
1997 15.2 15.7 - - - - - -
1998 15.4 15.5 - - - - - -
1999 14.8 15.4 - - - - - -
2000 15 15.3 - - - - - -
2001 15.4 15.2 - - - - - -
2002 15.8 15.1 - - - - - -
2003 15.1 14.9 - - - - - -
2004 14.4 14.8 - - - - - -
2005 15.4 14.7 - - - - - -
2006 14.7 14.6 - - - - - -
2007 14.6 14.4 - - - - - -
2008 14.2 14.3 - - - - - -
2009 13.8 14.2 - - - - - -
2010 14.3 14.1 - - - - - -
2011 13.9 - 14 14 13.9 14.1 15 14.5
2012 13.7 - 13.8 13.9 13.8 14 15.4 14.5
2013 14.4 - 13.7 13.7 13.7 13.9 15.4 14.5
2014 13.8 - 13.6 13.7 13.6 13.8 15.4 14.5
Prostate
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 4 of 7) – Prostate
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 117.2 109.4 - - - - - -
1987 122.6 117.8 - - - - - -
1988 124.6 126.9 - - - - - -
1989 126.4 136.8 - - - - - -
1990 138.3 147.3 - - - - - -
1991 157.6 158.7 - - - - - -
1992 174.6 171 - - - - - -
1993 192.5 184.2 - - - - - -
1994 175 173.8 - - - - - -
1995 153.6 164 - - - - - -
1996 156.1 154.7 - - - - - -
1997 166.1 160.3 - - - - - -
1998 165.9 166.1 - - - - - -
1999 172.3 172.1 - - - - - -
2000 177.9 178.3 - - - - - -
2001 191 184.7 - - - - - -
2002 176.6 181.8 - - - - - -
2003 167.7 178.9 - - - - - -
2004 171.7 176 - - - - - -
2005 172 173.2 - - - - - -
2006 180.8 170.4 - - - - - -
2007 180.7 167.7 - - - - - -
2008 164 165 - - - - - -
2009 159 162.4 - - - - - -
2010 154 159.8 - - - - - -
2011 157.1 - 180.4 215.3 176 180.4 168.7 167.9
2012 133.1 - 184.9 231.4 177.5 181.6 168.7 167.9
2013 119.9 - 189.3 247.5 179.1 182.8 168.7 167.9
2014 112.4 - 193.5 256.8 180.9 184 168.7 167.9
Female 1986 - - - - - - - -
1987 - - - - - - - -
1988 - - - - - - - -
1989 - - - - - - - -
1990 - - - - - - - -
1991 - - - - - - - -
1992 - - - - - - - -
1993 - - - - - - - -
1994 - - - - - - - -
1995 - - - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - - - -
1997 - - - - - - - -
1998 - - - - - - - -
1999 - - - - - - - -
2000 - - - - - - - -
2001 - - - - - - - -
2002 - - - - - - - -
2003 - - - - - - - -
2004 - - - - - - - -
2005 - - - - - - - -
2006 - - - - - - - -
2007 - - - - - - - -
2008 - - - - - - - -
2009 - - - - - - - -
2010 - - - - - - - -
2011 - - - - - - - -
2012 - - - - - - - -
2013 - - - - - - - -
2014 - - - - - - - -
Testis
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 4 of 7) – Testis
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 4.2 4.2 - - - - - -
1987 4.5 4.2 - - - - - -
1988 3.9 4.3 - - - - - -
1989 4.6 4.3 - - - - - -
1990 4.6 4.4 - - - - - -
1991 4.1 4.4 - - - - - -
1992 4.1 4.5 - - - - - -
1993 4.7 4.5 - - - - - -
1994 5 4.6 - - - - - -
1995 4.2 4.6 - - - - - -
1996 4.7 4.7 - - - - - -
1997 5 4.8 - - - - - -
1998 4.4 4.8 - - - - - -
1999 5 4.9 - - - - - -
2000 4.9 4.9 - - - - - -
2001 5.1 5 - - - - - -
2002 5 5 - - - - - -
2003 4.9 5.1 - - - - - -
2004 5.1 5.2 - - - - - -
2005 5.3 5.2 - - - - - -
2006 5.3 5.3 - - - - - -
2007 5.1 5.4 - - - - - -
2008 5.7 5.4 - - - - - -
2009 5.3 5.5 - - - - - -
2010 5.7 5.6 - - - - - -
2011 6 - 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.2 5.4
2012 5.6 - 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 4.9 5.4
2013 5.7 - 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 4.9 5.4
2014 5.9 - 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.8 4.9 5.4
Female 1986 - - - - - - - -
1987 - - - - - - - -
1988 - - - - - - - -
1989 - - - - - - - -
1990 - - - - - - - -
1991 - - - - - - - -
1992 - - - - - - - -
1993 - - - - - - - -
1994 - - - - - - - -
1995 - - - - - - - -
1996 - - - - - - - -
1997 - - - - - - - -
1998 - - - - - - - -
1999 - - - - - - - -
2000 - - - - - - - -
2001 - - - - - - - -
2002 - - - - - - - -
2003 - - - - - - - -
2004 - - - - - - - -
2005 - - - - - - - -
2006 - - - - - - - -
2007 - - - - - - - -
2008 - - - - - - - -
2009 - - - - - - - -
2010 - - - - - - - -
2011 - - - - - - - -
2012 - - - - - - - -
2013 - - - - - - - -
2014 - - - - - - - -

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 5 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 5 of 7)

Text description: Figure 3 (Section 5 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 5 of 7)

Urinary bladder
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 5 of 7) – Urinary bladder
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 41.9 43.8 - - - - - -
1987 43.7 42.3 - - - - - -
1988 42.6 40.7 - - - - - -
1989 38.2 39.3 - - - - - -
1990 37.5 37.9 - - - - - -
1991 37.3 37.6 - - - - - -
1992 38.2 37.4 - - - - - -
1993 37.5 37.1 - - - - - -
1994 36.8 36.9 - - - - - -
1995 36.7 36.6 - - - - - -
1996 35.4 36.4 - - - - - -
1997 37.5 36.1 - - - - - -
1998 34.9 35.9 - - - - - -
1999 37.6 35.6 - - - - - -
2000 35.3 35.4 - - - - - -
2001 34 35.1 - - - - - -
2002 33.6 34.9 - - - - - -
2003 34.5 34.7 - - - - - -
2004 34.7 34.4 - - - - - -
2005 33.1 34.2 - - - - - -
2006 33.7 33.9 - - - - - -
2007 32.5 33.7 - - - - - -
2008 33.9 33.5 - - - - - -
2009 34.1 33.3 - - - - - -
2010 34.1 33 - - - - - -
2011 34.3 - 33.3 31.8 32.6 31.9 35.5 33.6
2012 32.6 - 33.2 31.1 32.4 31.5 35.5 33.6
2013 45.4 - 33 30.5 32.1 31.2 35.5 33.6
2014 39.8 - 32.9 30.1 31.9 30.9 35.5 33.6
Female 1986 10.3 10.7 - - - - - -
1987 11.1 10.6 - - - - - -
1988 11.9 10.5 - - - - - -
1989 10 10.4 - - - - - -
1990 10.2 10.3 - - - - - -
1991 9.8 10.2 - - - - - -
1992 9.4 10.1 - - - - - -
1993 10.2 10 - - - - - -
1994 9.5 10 - - - - - -
1995 9.8 9.9 - - - - - -
1996 9.5 9.8 - - - - - -
1997 9.8 9.7 - - - - - -
1998 10.3 9.6 - - - - - -
1999 9.6 9.5 - - - - - -
2000 9 9.5 - - - - - -
2001 9.2 9.4 - - - - - -
2002 9.1 9.3 - - - - - -
2003 9.7 9.2 - - - - - -
2004 9.1 9.1 - - - - - -
2005 9.4 9.1 - - - - - -
2006 8.9 9 - - - - - -
2007 9.1 8.9 - - - - - -
2008 8.4 8.8 - - - - - -
2009 9 8.8 - - - - - -
2010 8.6 8.7 - - - - - -
2011 8.8 - 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.5 9.2 8.9
2012 8.8 - 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4 9.5 8.9
2013 11.5 - 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.3 9.5 8.9
2014 10.9 - 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.2 9.5 8.9
Kidney and renal pelvis
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 5 of 7) – Kidney and renal pelvis
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 14.2 14 - - - - - -
1987 15.2 15.5 - - - - - -
1988 17.1 17.1 - - - - - -
1989 17.3 17.1 - - - - - -
1990 16.4 17 - - - - - -
1991 17.3 16.9 - - - - - -
1992 16.8 16.9 - - - - - -
1993 17.2 16.8 - - - - - -
1994 16.8 16.7 - - - - - -
1995 16.2 16.7 - - - - - -
1996 16.7 16.6 - - - - - -
1997 17.3 16.6 - - - - - -
1998 16.1 16.5 - - - - - -
1999 16.9 16.7 - - - - - -
2000 17.4 17 - - - - - -
2001 16.9 17.3 - - - - - -
2002 17.7 17.5 - - - - - -
2003 17 17.8 - - - - - -
2004 17.3 18 - - - - - -
2005 18 18.3 - - - - - -
2006 19.2 18.6 - - - - - -
2007 20 18.9 - - - - - -
2008 19 19.2 - - - - - -
2009 19.1 19.5 - - - - - -
2010 19.7 19.8 - - - - - -
2011 14.2 14 20.7 19.5 20 19.9 18.5 19.2
2012 15.2 15.5 21.2 19.6 20.3 20.3 18.3 19.2
2013 17.1 17.1 21.6 19.6 20.7 20.6 18.3 19.2
2014 17.3 17.1 22 19.8 21 20.9 18.3 19.2
Female 1986 8.3 8.3 - - - - - -
1987 9.3 8.4 - - - - - -
1988 8.2 8.5 - - - - - -
1989 8.6 8.5 - - - - - -
1990 9.1 8.6 - - - - - -
1991 8.8 8.7 - - - - - -
1992 8.8 8.8 - - - - - -
1993 9 8.9 - - - - - -
1994 8.8 9 - - - - - -
1995 9.3 9.1 - - - - - -
1996 9.1 9.2 - - - - - -
1997 8.6 9.3 - - - - - -
1998 8.8 9.4 - - - - - -
1999 9.1 9.5 - - - - - -
2000 9.7 9.6 - - - - - -
2001 9.7 9.7 - - - - - -
2002 9.6 9.8 - - - - - -
2003 9.6 9.9 - - - - - -
2004 9.5 10 - - - - - -
2005 9.7 10.1 - - - - - -
2006 10.1 10.2 - - - - - -
2007 11.8 10.3 - - - - - -
2008 10.6 10.4 - - - - - -
2009 10.9 10.5 - - - - - -
2010 10.2 10.6 - - - - - -
2011 10.3 - 11.4 10.8 10.7 10.7 9.9 10.6
2012 11.2 - 11.6 10.8 10.8 10.8 9.5 10.6
2013 10.4 - 11.8 10.8 10.9 10.9 9.5 10.6
2014 9.9 - 12 10.9 11 11 9.5 10.6
Brain/CNS
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 5 of 7) – Brain/CNS
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 9.3 9.7 - - - - - -
1987 9.7 9.6 - - - - - -
1988 10.2 9.6 - - - - - -
1989 9 9.6 - - - - - -
1990 9.7 9.6 - - - - - -
1991 9.8 9.5 - - - - - -
1992 9.7 9.5 - - - - - -
1993 9.4 9.5 - - - - - -
1994 9.2 9.5 - - - - - -
1995 9.5 9.4 - - - - - -
1996 9.3 9.4 - - - - - -
1997 9.3 9.4 - - - - - -
1998 9.3 9.4 - - - - - -
1999 9.9 9.3 - - - - - -
2000 9.4 9.3 - - - - - -
2001 9.1 9.3 - - - - - -
2002 9.2 9.3 - - - - - -
2003 9.5 9.2 - - - - - -
2004 8.8 9.2 - - - - - -
2005 9 9.2 - - - - - -
2006 8.9 9.2 - - - - - -
2007 9.4 9.1 - - - - - -
2008 9.5 9.1 - - - - - -
2009 9.1 9.1 - - - - - -
2010 8.8 9.1 - - - - - -
2011 9.1 - 9 9 9.1 9 9.2 9.1
2012 8.6 - 9 8.9 9 8.9 9.3 9.1
2013 8.6 - 9 8.9 9 8.9 9.3 9.1
2014 7.6 - 8.9 8.8 9 8.9 9.3 9.1
Female 1986 6.7 6.9 - - - - - -
1987 7 6.9 - - - - - -
1988 7.1 6.9 - - - - - -
1989 6.5 6.8 - - - - - -
1990 6.8 6.8 - - - - - -
1991 6.9 6.8 - - - - - -
1992 6.2 6.8 - - - - - -
1993 6.6 6.7 - - - - - -
1994 6.9 6.7 - - - - - -
1995 6.8 6.7 - - - - - -
1996 6.3 6.7 - - - - - -
1997 7 6.6 - - - - - -
1998 6.6 6.6 - - - - - -
1999 7.1 6.6 - - - - - -
2000 6.6 6.6 - - - - - -
2001 6.8 6.5 - - - - - -
2002 6.5 6.5 - - - - - -
2003 6.4 6.5 - - - - - -
2004 6 6.5 - - - - - -
2005 6.6 6.4 - - - - - -
2006 6.1 6.4 - - - - - -
2007 6.5 6.4 - - - - - -
2008 6.4 6.4 - - - - - -
2009 6.5 6.3 - - - - - -
2010 6.1 6.3 - - - - - -
2011 6.5 - 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.4
2012 6.2 - 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.4
2013 5.8 - 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.2 6.5 6.4
2014 5.2 - 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.5 6.4
Thyroid
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 5 of 7) – Thyroid
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 2.5 2.5 - - - - - -
1987 2.7 2.5 - - - - - -
1988 2.5 2.6 - - - - - -
1989 2.3 2.7 - - - - - -
1990 2.7 2.7 - - - - - -
1991 3 2.8 - - - - - -
1992 2.5 2.9 - - - - - -
1993 2.9 2.9 - - - - - -
1994 3.3 3 - - - - - -
1995 3.1 3.1 - - - - - -
1996 3.2 3.2 - - - - - -
1997 3.2 3.3 - - - - - -
1998 3.2 3.5 - - - - - -
1999 3.7 3.7 - - - - - -
2000 4.1 3.9 - - - - - -
2001 4.1 4.2 - - - - - -
2002 4.7 4.4 - - - - - -
2003 4.4 4.7 - - - - - -
2004 4.6 5 - - - - - -
2005 5.6 5.3 - - - - - -
2006 5.9 5.6 - - - - - -
2007 6.3 6 - - - - - -
2008 6.6 6.4 - - - - - -
2009 6.7 6.8 - - - - - -
2010 6.6 7.2 - - - - - -
2011 8.2 - 7.7 6.9 7.1 7.1 5.1 6.3
2012 8.6 - 8.1 7.1 7.3 7.3 4.6 6.3
2013 8.7 - 8.6 7.2 7.6 7.6 4.3 6.3
2014 9 - 9 7.5 7.9 7.8 4.3 6.3
Female 1986 6.1 5.9 - - - - - -
1987 6.2 6.1 - - - - - -
1988 6.1 6.4 - - - - - -
1989 6.3 6.7 - - - - - -
1990 6.5 6.9 - - - - - -
1991 7.1 7.2 - - - - - -
1992 7.8 7.5 - - - - - -
1993 8.2 7.8 - - - - - -
1994 8.8 8.2 - - - - - -
1995 8.6 8.5 - - - - - -
1996 8.7 8.9 - - - - - -
1997 9 9.2 - - - - - -
1998 8.9 9.6 - - - - - -
1999 10.5 10.6 - - - - - -
2000 11.6 11.6 - - - - - -
2001 12.6 12.8 - - - - - -
2002 15.2 14 - - - - - -
2003 15.5 15.4 - - - - - -
2004 16.7 17 - - - - - -
2005 18.7 18.7 - - - - - -
2006 18.8 19.4 - - - - - -
2007 20 20.2 - - - - - -
2008 21.3 20.9 - - - - - -
2009 21.7 21.7 - - - - - -
2010 22.5 22.6 - - - - - -
2011 25.6 - 24.5 23.5 24.1 24 15.4 20.6
2012 26.8 - 25.6 24.4 25.5 25.3 13.1 20.6
2013 26.4 - 26.8 25.3 26.9 26.7 13.1 20.6
2014 26.1 - 27.8 26.4 28.5 28.2 13.1 20.6

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 6 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 6 of 7)

Text description: Figure 3 (Section 6 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 6 of 7)

Hodgkin lymphoma
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 6 of 7) – Hodgkin lymphoma
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 3.3 3.3 - - - - - -
1987 3.3 3.2 - - - - - -
1988 3.4 3.2 - - - - - -
1989 3.1 3.2 - - - - - -
1990 3.3 3.2 - - - - - -
1991 3.1 3.2 - - - - - -
1992 3.2 3.2 - - - - - -
1993 3.2 3.2 - - - - - -
1994 3.3 3.2 - - - - - -
1995 3.1 3.1 - - - - - -
1996 3 3.1 - - - - - -
1997 3.1 3.1 - - - - - -
1998 2.8 3.1 - - - - - -
1999 3.2 3.1 - - - - - -
2000 3.1 3.1 - - - - - -
2001 2.8 3.1 - - - - - -
2002 3.3 3.1 - - - - - -
2003 3 3.1 - - - - - -
2004 3.1 3 - - - - - -
2005 3.1 3 - - - - - -
2006 2.9 3 - - - - - -
2007 3 3 - - - - - -
2008 3.1 3 - - - - - -
2009 3 3 - - - - - -
2010 2.9 3 - - - - - -
2011 3 - 3 3 3 3 3.1 3
2012 2.7 - 3 3 3 3 3.1 3
2013 3 - 3 3 3 3 3.1 3
2014 3 - 3 3 2.9 3 3.1 3
Female 1986 2.3 2.3 - - - - - -
1987 2.4 2.3 - - - - - -
1988 2.1 2.3 - - - - - -
1989 2.4 2.3 - - - - - -
1990 2.5 2.4 - - - - - -
1991 2.4 2.4 - - - - - -
1992 2.3 2.4 - - - - - -
1993 2.1 2.4 - - - - - -
1994 2.5 2.4 - - - - - -
1995 2.5 2.4 - - - - - -
1996 2.3 2.4 - - - - - -
1997 2.5 2.4 - - - - - -
1998 2.3 2.4 - - - - - -
1999 2.4 2.4 - - - - - -
2000 2.2 2.4 - - - - - -
2001 2.2 2.4 - - - - - -
2002 2.7 2.4 - - - - - -
2003 2.4 2.4 - - - - - -
2004 2.4 2.4 - - - - - -
2005 2.4 2.4 - - - - - -
2006 2.5 2.4 - - - - - -
2007 2.6 2.4 - - - - - -
2008 2.5 2.4 - - - - - -
2009 2.4 2.4 - - - - - -
2010 2.4 2.5 - - - - - -
2011 2.3 - 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4
2012 2.1 - 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4
2013 2.3 - 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4
2014 2.2 - 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 6 of 7) – Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 19.2 20 - - - - - -
1987 20 20.2 - - - - - -
1988 20.5 20.5 - - - - - -
1989 20.3 20.7 - - - - - -
1990 21.1 21 - - - - - -
1991 21.2 21.3 - - - - - -
1992 21 21.5 - - - - - -
1993 22.2 21.8 - - - - - -
1994 22.3 22.1 - - - - - -
1995 22.7 22.3 - - - - - -
1996 22.7 22.6 - - - - - -
1997 23.6 22.9 - - - - - -
1998 23.9 23.2 - - - - - -
1999 24 23.5 - - - - - -
2000 23.9 23.8 - - - - - -
2001 23.9 24.1 - - - - - -
2002 23.7 24.4 - - - - - -
2003 24.2 24.7 - - - - - -
2004 25.3 25 - - - - - -
2005 25.5 25.3 - - - - - -
2006 24.2 25.6 - - - - - -
2007 26.8 25.9 - - - - - -
2008 25 25.4 - - - - - -
2009 24.8 24.9 - - - - - -
2010 24.6 24.4 - - - - - -
2011 23.6 - 25.2 25.6 26 25.2 23.8 25.1
2012 24.5 - 25.2 25.7 26.2 25.3 23.8 25.1
2013 27.7 - 25.2 25.9 26.4 25.4 23.8 25.1
2014 28.4 - 25.2 25.9 26.7 25.6 23.8 25.1
Female 1986 13.5 14.2 - - - - - -
1987 14.4 14.4 - - - - - -
1988 14.9 14.7 - - - - - -
1989 15.5 15 - - - - - -
1990 15.4 15.3 - - - - - -
1991 15.4 15.5 - - - - - -
1992 16 15.8 - - - - - -
1993 16.2 16.1 - - - - - -
1994 16.9 16.4 - - - - - -
1995 16.4 16.7 - - - - - -
1996 16.3 17 - - - - - -
1997 17.6 17.4 - - - - - -
1998 18.2 17.4 - - - - - -
1999 17.4 17.5 - - - - - -
2000 17.4 17.6 - - - - - -
2001 17.2 17.6 - - - - - -
2002 17.4 17.7 - - - - - -
2003 17.4 17.8 - - - - - -
2004 18 17.8 - - - - - -
2005 17.9 17.9 - - - - - -
2006 18.6 18 - - - - - -
2007 18 18 - - - - - -
2008 18.1 18.1 - - - - - -
2009 18.1 18.2 - - - - - -
2010 18.1 18.2 - - - - - -
2011 17.6 - 18.3 18.6 18.8 18.4 17.6 18.1
2012 17.1 - 18.4 18.8 19.1 18.5 17.4 18.1
2013 19.7 - 18.5 18.9 19.3 18.6 17.4 18.1
2014 19.2 - 18.5 19 19.4 18.7 17.4 18.1
Myeloma
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 6 of 7) – Myeloma
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 7.2 7.4 - - - - - -
1987 7.3 7.4 - - - - - -
1988 7.6 7.4 - - - - - -
1989 8 7.5 - - - - - -
1990 8.1 7.5 - - - - - -
1991 6.6 7.5 - - - - - -
1992 7.7 7.6 - - - - - -
1993 7.4 7.6 - - - - - -
1994 7.7 7.7 - - - - - -
1995 7.9 7.7 - - - - - -
1996 7.1 7.7 - - - - - -
1997 8.2 7.8 - - - - - -
1998 8.1 7.8 - - - - - -
1999 7.4 7.8 - - - - - -
2000 7.9 7.9 - - - - - -
2001 7.8 7.9 - - - - - -
2002 7.7 7.9 - - - - - -
2003 7.5 8 - - - - - -
2004 8.7 8 - - - - - -
2005 8.5 8.1 - - - - - -
2006 8.1 8.1 - - - - - -
2007 7.7 8.1 - - - - - -
2008 7.8 8.2 - - - - - -
2009 8.3 8.2 - - - - - -
2010 8.6 8.3 - - - - - -
2011 8.2 - 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.3 8 8.2
2012 8.5 - 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.9 8.2
2013 9.9 - 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.4 7.9 8.2
2014 9.1 - 8.3 8.4 8.3 8.4 7.9 8.2
Female 1986 5.1 4.9 - - - - - -
1987 4.6 5 - - - - - -
1988 5.2 5 - - - - - -
1989 4.7 5 - - - - - -
1990 5.3 5 - - - - - -
1991 4.8 5 - - - - - -
1992 5.1 5.1 - - - - - -
1993 5 5.1 - - - - - -
1994 5.4 5.1 - - - - - -
1995 5.4 5.1 - - - - - -
1996 4.5 5.2 - - - - - -
1997 5.3 5.2 - - - - - -
1998 5.4 5.2 - - - - - -
1999 5.3 5.2 - - - - - -
2000 5.3 5.3 - - - - - -
2001 5.5 5.3 - - - - - -
2002 5.2 5.3 - - - - - -
2003 5 5.3 - - - - - -
2004 5.3 5.3 - - - - - -
2005 5.3 5.4 - - - - - -
2006 5.4 5.4 - - - - - -
2007 5.6 5.4 - - - - - -
2008 5.1 5.4 - - - - - -
2009 5.3 5.5 - - - - - -
2010 5.8 5.5 - - - - - -
2011 5.3 - 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.4
2012 5.5 - 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.2 5.4
2013 5.8 - 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.4
2014 5.9 - 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.4
Leukemia
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 6 of 7) – Leukemia
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 19.6 19.3 - - - - - -
1987 20 19.1 - - - - - -
1988 18.1 18.9 - - - - - -
1989 18.8 18.7 - - - - - -
1990 17.5 18.5 - - - - - -
1991 18.1 18.3 - - - - - -
1992 18.8 18.1 - - - - - -
1993 18.3 17.9 - - - - - -
1994 17.6 17.7 - - - - - -
1995 18.5 17.9 - - - - - -
1996 18.1 18 - - - - - -
1997 17.8 18.2 - - - - - -
1998 17.9 18.3 - - - - - -
1999 19.4 18.4 - - - - - -
2000 18.2 18.6 - - - - - -
2001 17.8 18.7 - - - - - -
2002 18.6 18.9 - - - - - -
2003 19.7 19 - - - - - -
2004 19.3 19.2 - - - - - -
2005 18.6 19.3 - - - - - -
2006 19.2 19.5 - - - - - -
2007 20.3 19.6 - - - - - -
2008 19.8 19.8 - - - - - -
2009 19.8 20 - - - - - -
2010 20.3 20.1 - - - - - -
2011 19.6 - 20.4 19.8 20.4 20.2 19.4 19.7
2012 19.1 - 20.6 19.8 20.6 20.4 19.1 19.7
2013 21.1 - 20.8 19.7 20.8 20.6 19.1 19.7
2014 19 - 20.9 19.8 21 20.7 19.1 19.7
Female 1986 11.3 11.1 - - - - - -
1987 11.2 11.1 - - - - - -
1988 11.5 11 - - - - - -
1989 10.8 11 - - - - - -
1990 10.6 11 - - - - - -
1991 10.7 11 - - - - - -
1992 11 11 - - - - - -
1993 10.8 10.9 - - - - - -
1994 10.6 10.9 - - - - - -
1995 11 10.9 - - - - - -
1996 11 10.9 - - - - - -
1997 10.6 10.8 - - - - - -
1998 11 10.8 - - - - - -
1999 10.9 10.8 - - - - - -
2000 10.9 10.8 - - - - - -
2001 10.5 10.8 - - - - - -
2002 11.3 11 - - - - - -
2003 11 11.1 - - - - - -
2004 11.1 11.3 - - - - - -
2005 11.3 11.5 - - - - - -
2006 12.1 11.7 - - - - - -
2007 12.6 11.9 - - - - - -
2008 11.9 12.1 - - - - - -
2009 12 12.3 - - - - - -
2010 12.4 12.5 - - - - - -
2011 11.5 - 12.9 12.1 12.1 12.2 11.6 12.1
2012 11.2 - 13.2 12.1 12 12.3 11.3 12.1
2013 12.6 - 13.4 12.1 12.1 12.4 11.3 12.1
2014 11.7 - 13.6 12.2 12.2 12.5 11.3 12.1

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 7 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 7 of 7)

Text description: Figure 3 (Section 7 of 7)

Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (Section 7 of 7)

All Others
Figure 3. Actual age-standardized incidence rates (1986–2010) and projected age-standardized rates (2011–2014) obtained with Canproj projection models by sex and cancer site, Canada (section 7 of 7) – All Others
Sex Year Observed data Joinpoint Nordpred Age-cohort Hybrid age-specific trend Hybrid age-common trend Hybrid age-only 5-Year average
Male 1986 44 46.1 - - - - - -
1987 45.2 46.5 - - - - - -
1988 46.9 47 - - - - - -
1989 47.5 47.4 - - - - - -
1990 46.1 47.8 - - - - - -
1991 47.2 48.2 - - - - - -
1992 53 48.6 - - - - - -
1993 51.1 49.1 - - - - - -
1994 51 49.5 - - - - - -
1995 50.6 49.9 - - - - - -
1996 50.2 50.4 - - - - - -
1997 50.4 50.8 - - - - - -
1998 50.4 51.3 - - - - - -
1999 51.7 51.7 - - - - - -
2000 51.9 52.2 - - - - - -
2001 52.6 52.7 - - - - - -
2002 51.4 53.1 - - - - - -
2003 53.4 53.6 - - - - - -
2004 52.8 52.8 - - - - - -
2005 52.8 51.9 - - - - - -
2006 51.7 51.1 - - - - - -
2007 49.8 50.3 - - - - - -
2008 49.8 49.5 - - - - - -
2009 47.4 48.8 - - - - - -
2010 48.7 48 - - - - - -
2011 48.9 - 50.1 50.9 49.1 49.6 50.9 50
2012 47.5 - 50.3 51.3 48.8 49.5 50.9 50
2013 53.6 - 50.5 51.8 48.6 49.4 50.9 50
2014 49.7 - 50.4 51.8 48.3 49.2 50.9 50
Female 1986 35.2 34.9 - - - - - -
1987 35.3 35.3 - - - - - -
1988 36.6 35.6 - - - - - -
1989 35.7 36 - - - - - -
1990 35.3 36.3 - - - - - -
1991 36.1 36.7 - - - - - -
1992 38.2 37 - - - - - -
1993 37.2 37.4 - - - - - -
1994 37.6 37.8 - - - - - -
1995 37.9 38.1 - - - - - -
1996 38 38.5 - - - - - -
1997 38 38.9 - - - - - -
1998 39.5 39.2 - - - - - -
1999 40.7 39.6 - - - - - -
2000 39.9 40 - - - - - -
2001 40.6 40.4 - - - - - -
2002 41.2 40.8 - - - - - -
2003 41.2 41.2 - - - - - -
2004 40.9 41.6 - - - - - -
2005 41.3 41.2 - - - - - -
2006 41.8 40.8 - - - - - -
2007 40.1 40.4 - - - - - -
2008 38.8 40 - - - - - -
2009 39.6 39.6 - - - - - -
2010 39.9 39.3 - - - - - -
2011 39.2 - 40.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 39.5 40.2
2012 38.8 - 40.3 41.8 41.6 41.8 39.5 40.2
2013 41.9 - 40.3 42.2 41.8 42 39.5 40.2
2014 41.3 - 40.3 42.5 42 42.2 39.5 40.2

Cancer sites that showed recent change in trend for which projections could potentially be improved by changing the length of the data included male all cancers, male and female colorectal cancer and prostate cancer. We ran separate hybrid models on these cancers sites using the last 7 years of data only. It was possible to increase the fit of the projections substantially for all four cancer sites. For colorectal cancer, it was possible to bring the RB ratio from 16.0 to 2.6 for males and from 5.5 to 1.9 for females. We were also able to bring the RB ratio from 5.7 to 5.4 for male all cancers combined and from 11.2 to 7.7 for prostate cancer.

Canproj model decision trees

As shown in Table 3, the cohort effect and the drift parameter were significant 79% of the time (34 out of 43 models), which makes Nordpred the model most often selected by Canproj. However, Nordpred was the model with the smallest RB only 24% of the time. Nevertheless, the mean RB was between 0 and 5% for at least one of the six models 76% of the time and between 6% and 10% for at least one model 20% of the time.

Table 3. Canproj decision tree: average relative bias by model, sex and cancer site

Table 3. Canproj decision tree: average relative bias by model, sex and cancer site
Sex Cancer type Model
Nordpred Age–cohort Hybrid 5-Year average
Age-specific trend Age-common trend Age only
Male All cancers 10.9Footnote a of Table 3 10.1 5.9 5.7Footnote b of Table 3 7.8 7.5
Oral 8.6Footnote a of Table 3 13.2 14.8 12.6 1.6Footnote b of Table 3 5.9
Esophagus 3.9 2.6Footnote b of Table 3 4.2Footnote a of Table 3 3.2 6.8 3.0
Stomach 3.4Footnote c of Table 3 3.7 4.1 3.7 26.1 9.5
Colorectal 7.9Footnote a of Table 3 8.2 6.9Footnote b of Table 3 8.6 10.7 8.3
Liver 6.8Footnote a of Table 3 6.5 7.6 6.2Footnote b of Table 3 26.0 8.6
Pancreas 3.2 7.0 6.2Footnote a of Table 3 5.0 3.2Footnote b of Table 3 3.8
Larynx 2.1Footnote c of Table 3 3.6 2.5 2.2 39.4 16.2
Lung and bronchus 3.2Footnote a of Table 3 1.7 2.6 1.6Footnote b of Table 3 32.4 12.9
Melanoma 2.1Footnote c of Table 3 5.5 2.8 3.9 17.6 7.8
Breast 6.2Footnote b of Table 3 6.8 8.6 8.3Footnote a of Table 3 6.4 6.2
Prostate 45.9Footnote a of Table 3 86.4 38.9 41.8 31.3 30.6Footnote b of Table 3
Testis 2.4 2.4Footnote a of Table 3 2.2 2.1Footnote b of Table 3 14.3 7.1
Urinary bladder 12.3Footnote a of Table 3 17.3 13.7 15.9 11.2Footnote b of Table 3 11.6
Kidney and renal pelvis 5.5Footnote a of Table 3 3.0 2.4 2.3Footnote b of Table 3 9.4 5.3
Brain/CNS 6.7Footnote a of Table 3 6.0Footnote b of Table 3 7.0 6.3 10.0 8.0
Thyroid 3.3Footnote c of Table 3 16.8 13.4 13.5 46.8 26.9
Hodgkin lymphoma 3.4Footnote b of Table 3 3.4 3.5 3.4 5.5Footnote a of Table 3 3.8
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 7.5Footnote a of Table 3 7.2 6.9Footnote b of Table 3 7.0 8.5 7.5
Myeloma 6.6 6.3Footnote b of Table 3 6.6Footnote a of Table 3 6.4 10.7 7.9
Leukemia 6.0 3.9 6.0Footnote a of Table 3 5.5 2.8Footnote b of Table 3 3.6
All others 3.8Footnote a of Table 3 4.8 3.8 3.6 4.6 3.6Footnote b of Table 3
Female All cancers 1.3Footnote a of Table 3 1.1 1.0Footnote b of Table 3 1.1 3.4 1.1
Oral 3.4 4.1Footnote a of Table 3 4.4 3.9 2.9Footnote b of Table 3 3.3
Esophagus 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.0Footnote c of Table 3 8.8 3.9
Stomach 2.7Footnote c of Table 3 2.9 7.2 4.1 20.7 4.9
Colorectal 5.2Footnote a of Table 3 4.9 3.7Footnote b of Table 3 5.4 9.5 6.1
Liver 5.4Footnote a of Table 3 4.9Footnote b of Table 3 5.2 5.5 21.8 9.0
Pancreas 4.9 5.1 5.2 5.0 4.9Footnote a of Table 3 4.7Footnote b of Table 3
Larynx 10.2Footnote c of Table 3 14.5 16.7 15.3 53.4 24.0
Lung and bronchus 1.6Footnote c of Table 3 1.6 10.3 5.8 3.5 2.4
Melanoma 3.0Footnote c of Table 3 8.4 4.2 4.1 16.9 9.1
Breast 2.3Footnote a of Table 3 2.9 1.2Footnote b of Table 3 1.5 1.8 1.7
Cervix uteri 3.4Footnote a of Table 3 4.6 1.5 1.5Footnote b of Table 3 20.9 8.3
Uterus 2.8Footnote c of Table 3 7.9 3.0 3.6 10.1 10.1
Ovary 1.9Footnote a of Table 3 1.8Footnote b of Table 3 1.8 1.8 9.7 4.0
Urinary bladder 14.6Footnote a of Table 3 14.7 13.7 15.0 10.7Footnote b of Table 3 10.7
Kidney and renal pelvis 12.0Footnote a of Table 3 5.4 6.0 5.8 7.7 4.1Footnote b of Table 3
Brain/CNS 7.8Footnote a of Table 3 7.1Footnote b of Table 3 8.2 7.7 10.8 9.1
Thyroid 4.3Footnote c of Table 3 5.7 5.5 5.3 47.9 21.6
Hodgkin lymphoma 10.1 10.5Footnote a of Table 3 11.5 11.0 7.9Footnote b of Table 3 10.0
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 5.6Footnote a of Table 3 5.3 5.4 5.3Footnote b of Table 3 5.8 5.7
Myeloma 3.7Footnote b of Table 3 3.9 3.8Footnote a of Table 3 3.8 6.4 4.4
Leukemia 13.2Footnote a of Table 3 5.6 5.2 6.4 4.1Footnote b of Table 3 5.1
All others 3.0Footnote c of Table 3 4.2 3.7 4.0 3.1 3.2

Discussion

Our aim was to validate short-term projections generated by Canproj using Canadian cancer incidence data. The results show that the range of models Canproj offers supports making reliable projections for most of the cancer sites investigated. When variations in rates were identified within the last 10 years of training data, it was possible to use the recent, shorter time period as the projection base for the hybrid models to improve the accuracy of the projected rates.

The large jump in bladder cancer rates in 2013/2014 is due to changes in reporting rules in Ontario;Footnote 20 starting in 2013, Ontario added in situ bladder to malignant bladder cancer in their registry.

Brain/CNS, colorectal cancer, female Hodgkin lymphoma, prostate and male all cancer combined rates are declining faster than the models predicted, while male myeloma is increasing faster than the models predict. The poor performance at predicting these cancer rates is related to the recent and rapid changes in their rates that were not part of the training dataset or happened in the last few years of the training dataset.

We evaluated the automatic model selection feature of Canproj (decision trees) to assess the capacity of these functions to select the best model. For the national dataset, Nordpred was the model most often selected by Canproj decision tree although it was the one with the smallest RB only 24% of the time. Other models can outperform Nordpred when analyzing data from smaller populations.Footnote 21 Personal and others’ experiences with Canproj suggest that the decision tree selection should be used in combination with individual outputs of each model and expert advice to select the best projection model.Footnote 22

The results of this project build on prior Canadian studies that examined different cancer projection methods. Lee et al. (2011) compared the accuracy of 16 models and model variations for projecting short-term cancer mortality rates.Footnote 23 They found that no single method was able to consistently provide accurate forecasts for a wide range of cancer sites and that a choice of models is preferable. Qiu et al. (2010) compared the Nordpred model, the generalized additive model and the Bayesian model.Footnote 8 They concluded that when the age, drift and cohort effects are present, the Nordpred method is the preferred approach; when the age and cohort effects are present, an age–cohort model is the best approach; and when the cohort effect is not present, a hybrid method should be used. They also found that for small cancer sites, data aggregation is required to apply the hybrid method. In 2010, the Canadian Cancer Projections Network (C-Proj) released a report in which they evaluated Nordpred, hybrid, age–cohort and Bayesian models using Markov chain Monte Carlo cancer incidence projection methods with data from the Nova Scotia Cancer Registry.Footnote 21 They suggested that the age–cohort method should be used for cancer projections for provinces with small and stable populations.

Although cancer incidence projections are routinely performed, only a few studies describe the evaluation of alternative methods; the recommendations depend on the population included and projection time frame. Stock et al. (2018) used a Bayesian approach to project cancer incidence rates to 2030 using data from the German cancer registry.Footnote 24 They found that this method offered advantages in terms of flexibility, interpretability, transparency and level of detail, but they did not recommend using it for short-term data. Pesola et al. (2017) compared a number of models (null, age–drift, age–period, age–cohort and APC) to predict pediatric and adolescent cancer incidence in England to 2030.Footnote 25 The model fit results showed that the age–drift model offered as good a fit to the data as more complex models for all cancers in children. An APC model with natural cubic splines was evaluated when predicting cancer incidence and mortality in the United Kingdom until 2035.Footnote 26 The basis of the APC model is that past trends will continue into the future. If vaccines or new treatments that change cancer incidence and mortality are developed, the model will not anticipate these changes, reinforcing the importance of using recent data and completing projections at regular intervals.Footnote 27 Katanoda et al. (2014) examined three projection models’ ability to project short-term cancer incidence in Japan: generalized linear model with age and period as independent variables (A+P linear); generalized linear model with age, period and their interactions (A*P linear); and generalized additive model with age, period and their interactions smoothed by spline (A*P spline).Footnote 28 They used Nordpred in their preliminary analysis and it failed to predict the peak in liver cancer in the mid-1990s.

Strengths and limitations

This project has several limitations. In all the models Canproj uses, the variables age, period and cohort encompass all the changes and improvements in risk factors, demography and ethnic profile of the population, prevention, early detection and treatment. More details on these cancer rate determinants would improve the capacity for making more reliable projections. However, the level of information needed may be hard to obtain in some jurisdictions and, for most of the cancer sites investigated in the project, the age, period and cohort information has proven sufficient for making reliable projections.

We did not conduct a detailed Canadian provincial data analysis in the present exercise, but we expect that as provincial populations get smaller, models other than Nordpred would become the most frequently selected through the decision tree.

The data used in the models did not include data from the province of Quebec and consequently does not represent the entire country.

Finally, as with all methods, projections rely on the assumption that past trends will continue into the future, which may not always be the case.

Conclusions

Health care planners and policy makers need to know about the future burden of cancer to help them prioritize cancer control strategies, allocate resources and evaluate treatments and interventions. The Canproj package can provide reliable cancer projections to help them support their task.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Authors’ contributions and statement

AD, ZQ and AS were involved in the design and conceptualization of the work.

AD and ZQ were in involved in the analysis of the data.

AD drafted the paper.

All authors provided input for the interpretation of the results and revision of the paper.

The content and views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

Page details

Date modified: