Table 1.

Pros and cons with different measures to assess progress in cancer control. Included are our most preferred measures although we realize several outcomes are useful. We advise the reader to read the table horizontally.

Measure	Definition	Pros and cons
Standardized mortality rate Standardized incidence rate	Number of individuals who develop the cancer or die of the cancer divided by total number at risk with each stratum (defined by age and sex) assigned weight from a defined external (hypothetical) population	Pros: Takes competing risk into consideration Allows unconfounded comparison with populations with a different age and/or sex distribution Con: Is hypothetical and will differ for any specific population depending on the standard population
Net survival	Probability of surviving beyond a given time in the hypothetical scenario where cancer is the only possible cause of death. This is the target measure of ‘cause‐specific survival’ and ‘relative survival’	Pros: Independent of mortality due to causes other than cancer, so is ideal for comparing survival between different populations or over time within the same population. Cons: Complicated definition. Hypothetical scenario is not optimal in clinical setting
EORTC QLQ‐XX	Cancer site specific modules to connect to the EORTC QLQ‐C30/ QLQ‐C15‐PAL	Pros: Symptoms and problems commonly occurring in the site‐specific cancer diagnosis. Modules for many different cancer diagnoses are available Cons: With core questionnaire together with a site‐specific module there will be 40‐60 items to reply to. Not possible to compare with other groups of people
EORTC QLQ‐C30/QLQ‐C15‐PAL	Cancer disease‐specific questionnaire with a palliative version	Pros: Functions and symptoms common among cancer patients in general. All cancer patients. Connected with site‐specific modules Con: Not possible to compare with other groups of people
In addition to the abovementioned EORTC questionnaires SF‐36/12 RAND‐36 or EQ‐5D	Generic quality‐of‐life questionnaires	Pro: Independent on health status. Compare different groups of people Cos: Lack clinically important aspects of a patients’ health EQ‐5D Commonly used in health‐economic evaluations and QALY* analyses