Br Val Boyle Bibliography For Websites

Dear Beloved Brother Neil in Christ, greetings to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Brother, now our dear beloved brother VAL slept in Christ. Its undigested news to me and we lost very precious and Godly man on earth. But, We are praising our Lord because he completed his Christian life as Good Husband to his wife, Good Father to his Children, Good Grand Father to his Grand children, Good Godly brother to me, Good role model to many and Faithful servant in Gods vine yard. Peacefully he entered in to God's rest; brother it is our responsibility to continue his Ministry what he was already stated on earth.

Brother my Bible says "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord". One day we will meet him with Christ. Brother we are the only people entire the world having a Great and precious HOPE for the FUTURE. Brother , Our lord shows us that death is under the sovereign authority of our heavenly Father and He permits it. Our response should be one of acceptance and submission. Once our Lord Jesus Said like this when he was on the Earth: I am the Resurrection, and the LIFE; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. The final reality of who those believe in Jesus Christ is not DEATH but LIFE Hallelujah. This is our Great HOPE.

Brother once our beloved brother Val told me like this, dear brother Raju; I am still at the doorway to eternal life. Haven't yet reached my final destination in eternity but hopefully am ready and willing. Brother, he is really great Man Of God. I think those words says only the people who completely depend on GOD. Brother you know about Resurrection is for both Believers and Unbelievers. For Believers it is Resurrection to live with Christ forever. My beloved brother Val had direct fellowship with Christ, what a great Privilege he had now.

In love of Christ,
Your brother Pastor Galanki Raju


While we have no difficulty following the reasoning of Valerie Beral
and Richard Peto,[1] we are not sure that their assessment of cancer
registration in the UK is entirely up-to-date. For example, since at least
1997, the Scottish Cancer Registry (SCR) has received histo- and cyto-
pathology data from all relevant laboratories in Scotland, as well as
hospital discharge records mentioning cancer from all relevant hospitals.

For women with breast cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2008, >95% of
registrations were recorded as microscopically verified each year. Only
around 1% of registrations were "notified" solely by a death record, and
ended up as death certificate only registrations. By referring to source documents when necessary cancer registration staff make every effort to capture the earliest available date of diagnosis and avoid registering recurrences. A matter of fact - it can be remarkably challenging to ascertain instances of disease recurrence, many of which are diagnosed in an outpatient setting and not all lead to a pathology report. The completeness of ascertainment of breast cancer cases by SCR has
been assessed by independent comparison with five clinical trials
databases, comprising 2621 patients and spanning the total period of
diagnosis 1978-2000. Overall, ascertainment was estimated to exceed 98%,
and only 0.3% of matched cases were misclassified as carcinoma in situ.[2]

The fact that the UK's reported relative survival for a few types of
cancer (even those arising predominantly among the elderly) exceeds the
notional "European average" [3] does not seem consistent with a systematic
artefact of data processing that might be expected to operate in the same
direction, at least to some extent, across all cancers. Based on all of
the above, we remain unconvinced that differences in data quality are
substantive enough to explain the survival differences observed between
the UK and all of the Nordic countries (with the exception of Denmark,
which like its neighbours has statutory cancer registration, but reports
survival 'rates' similar to the UK for several major epithelial
cancers).[3]

At the same time, the completion of death certificates is far from
ideal, at least in the UK,[4] and the assignment and coding of the
underlying cause of death are by no means free from error. All of these
shortcomings can affect international comparisons of mortality.[5] For
example, when an identical batch of 1246 death certificates mentioning
cancer was sent to the Vital Statistics Offices of seven developed
countries (including England), the numbers of deaths attributed to breast
cancer ranged from 65 to 95 (a very substantial difference in relative
terms, which can hardly be said to inspire confidence).[6] Comparability
may have improved since the advent of automated coding software, but we
are not aware of any evidence that this is the case.

Leaving aside reservations about the validity of international
comparisons of cancer mortality, we also wonder if it is appropriate to
conclude that survival and mortality are contradictory based on a
comparison of the long-term percentage change in mortality against a point
estimate of survival referring to a much shorter period of diagnosis.
Would it not be more appropriate to compare either approximately
contemporary point estimates of survival and mortality, or alternatively
longer term trends in survival and mortality? Taking the example of
Sweden, which is thought to have high quality data, it is noteworthy that,
despite only slightly higher incidence of breast cancer in England,[7] and
the very striking decrease in breast cancer mortality in England and Wales
(from a high baseline) compared to Sweden, breast cancer mortality remains
considerably higher in England and Wales.[8] This is potentially
consistent with lower survival. Furthermore, the magnitude of the
estimated absolute increase in age-adjusted relative survival from breast
cancer between 1988 and 1999 was greater in England (9.9%) than in Sweden
(4.2%),[9] consistent with the more striking decrease in mortality
observed in the former.

Data quality is only one of many potential explanations for
differences in survival from cancer observed between countries
(table),[10] and to be fair to the authors of the EUROCARE studies, they
never claimed that lower survival can only be explained by inferior health
services. For example, a more detailed 'high resolution' study by the
EUROCARE Working Group suggested that differences in stage at diagnosis
explained much of the variation in breast cancer survival observed across
Europe.[11] If lower survival indicates delays in presentation, referral,
diagnosis or treatment, rather than biologically more aggressive disease,
there may be public health opportunities to improve outcome, alongside
those from advances in therapy. Differences in levels of co-morbidity and
prevalence of "lifestyle" risk factors, which may impact on the
suitability for and effectiveness of treatment, also seem worthy of
consideration as potential explanations for international survival
differences.

Regardless of the UK's position in any European "league table" of
survival from breast cancer, and even if breast cancer services have
always been as good as or better than anywhere else in Europe, the fact
that it was possible to demonstrate a benefit of specialisation in the
UK,[12,13] coupled with evidence of under-capacity in the NHS,[14] suggest
that the recent programme of investment in, and re-organisation of, cancer
services in the UK was justified. It would be unfortunate if policy-makers
were to conclude, from somewhat insecure international comparisons of
mortality trends alone, that this investment may have been unnecessary.
Cancer control strategies are probably best informed by dispassionate
examination of trends in incidence, survival and mortality alongside each
other, always mindful of the limitations of each of these potential
indicators of progress.[15]

References

1. Beral V, Peto R. UK cancer survival statistics. BMJ 2010; 341:
c4112

2. Brewster DH, Stockton DL. Ascertainment of breast cancer by the
Scottish Cancer Registry: An assessment based on comparison with five
independent breast cancer trials databases. Breast 2008; 17: 106-108.

3. Sant M, Allemani C, Santaquilani M, Knijn A, Marchesi F,
Capocaccia R, and the EUROCARE Working Group. EUROCARE-4. Survival of
cancer patients diagnosed in 1995-1999. Results and commentary. Eur J
Cancer 2009; 45: 931 - 991

4. Maudsley G, Williams EM. Death certification by house officers and
general practitioners--practice and performance. J Public Health Med 1993;
15: 192-201.

5. Boyle P. Relative value of incidence and mortality data in cancer
research. Recent Results in Cancer Research 1989; 114: 41-63.

6. Percy C, Dolman A. Comparison of the coding of death certificates
related to cancer in seven countries. Public Health Rep 1978; 93: 335-350.

7. Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR, Storm H, Ferlay J, Heanue M, Boyle
P (eds). Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Vol. IX. IARC Scientific
Publications No. 160. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer,
2007.

8. Autier P, Boniol M, LaVecchia C, Vatten L, Gavin A, Hary C, Heanue
M. Disparities in breast cancer mortality trends between 30 European
countries: retrospective trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ
2010; 341: c3620.

9. Verdecchia A, Guzzinati S, Francisci S, De Angelis R, Bray F,
Allemani C, Tavilla A, Santaquilani M, Sant M, and the EUROCARE Working
Group. Survival trends in European cancer patients diagnosed form 1988 to
1999. Eur J Cancer 2009; 45: 1042-1066.

10. Black RJ, Sankaranarayanan R, Parkin DM. Interpretation of
population-based cancer survival data. In: Sankaranarayanan R. Black RJ,
Parkin DM (eds). Cancer Survival in Developing Countries. IARC Scientific
Publications No. 145. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer,
1998.

11. Sant M, Allemani C, Capocaccia R, Hakulinen T, Aareleid T,
Coebergh JW, et al. Stage at diagnosis is a key explanation of
differences in breast cancer survival across Europe. Int J Cancer 2003;
106:416-422.

12. Gillis CR, Hole DJ. Survival outcome of care by specialist
surgeons in breast cancer: a study of 3786 patients in the west of
Scotland. BMJ 1996; 312: 145-148.

13. Sainsbury R, Haward B, Rider L, Johnston C, Round C. Influence of
clinician workload and patterns of treatment on survival from breast
cancer. Lancet 1995; 345: 1265-1270.

14. O'Rourke N, Edwards R. Lung cancer treatment waiting times and
tumour growth. Clin Oncol 2000; 12: 141-144.

15. Coleman MP. Trends in breast cancer incidence, survival, and
mortality. Lancet 2000; 356: 590-591.

Competing interests:
None declared

0 comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *