Lung Cancer survival statistics

Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival outcomes of any cancer because over two-thirds of patients are diagnosed at a late stage when curative treatment is not possible. 1 Earlier diagnosis and referral to specialist teams would make a significant difference to survival rates.

Many of the patients are elderly with co-existing co-morbid problems making them unfit for radical treatment but new surgical techniques may enable more patients with complex medical problems to benefit from surgery.2

In England and Wales the latest figures show around 27% of male and 30% of female lung cancer patients are alive one year after diagnosis falling to 7% and 9% respectively at five years ( Figure 3.1, 3.2)3-6. Ten year survival rates are shown in Figure 3.35-7.

Download this chart (57KB)

A Scottish analysis reported that 50% of lung cancer patients are dead within four months of diagnosis.8 One-year lung cancer survival rates in England and Wales have risen from 15% to 27% for men and 13% to 30% for women diagnosed between 1971-75 and 2004-06.3,4,6 Five-year survival rates over the same period have doubled but still remain low at around 8%.4-6 For lung cancer patients diagnosed in Scotland in 2004-2006, one-year survival rates were 26% for men and 28.8% for women. Five-year survival rates were 7% and 7.8% respectively.16 In Northern Ireland, five-year lung cancer survival rates were around 9% for patients diagnosed in 1997-2000.15

Download this chart (61KB)

Download this chart (63KB)

Patients with early stage disease have higher survival rates than those presenting with metastatic disease. If non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is detected at an early, operable stage, then five-year survival of between 54-80% for stage 1A patients and 38-65% for stage 1B may be achieved. 9

As with most other cancers, younger patients diagnosed with lung cancer have higher survival rates than older patients ( Figure 3.4). 4

Download this chart (70KB)

Analyses of lung cancer survival rates by socioeconomic deprivation in England and Wales have recorded a small but significant gap of 1.4% between men in the most affluent groups and those in the most deprived groups diagnosed with lung cancer during 1996-99. Although this difference is seemingly small, because of the large numbers of patients involved, this has an important consequence.

An earlier analysis based on all lung cancer patients diagnosed between 1986-90 estimated that 1,300 deaths would have been avoided if every socioeconomic group had the same survival rate as that for the most affluent group.10

There is also variation in lung cancer survival between regions of the UK, for example, five-year relative survival rates varied four-fold (2.2% to 8.8%) for patients diagnosed in England in 1993-95. 11 Even so, the highest UK rates are well below the average European and American rates. In the USA, five-year relative survival estimates are 13% for men and 17% for women. 12

The highest lung cancer five-year survival rates in Europe are in Austria, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Spain at 11-13% for men and 11-16% for women. 13 Surgical resection rates, which have been correlated to outcome in some studies, are lower in Britain (11%) compared with the rest of Europe (17%) and North America (21%) and vary by three-fold between health authorities in England. 5, 14

A 2001 report from Scotland suggests that their lung cancer survival rates could be improved to international standards (13-14%) by the "implementation of currently available therapy to a subset of Scottish lung cancer patients". 8

To address the problem of low surgical intervention rates and poor five-year survival, a National Lung Cancer Audit programme (LUCADA) has been launched to collect data on 'the incidence, nature, geographical distribution and treatment of lung cancer' with the 'ultimate aim of improving patient care and outcomes'. 1