Socioeconomic disparities in head and neck cancer survival in Germany: a causal mediation analysis using population-based cancer registry data

Psychological Factors Related to Treatment Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) often demonstrate stress, distress, anxiety, depression, and are at risk for suicide. These affect their quality of life (QoL) but less attention has been given to psychological variables that may impact response to treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to systematically review publications during 2013-2023 to collate evidence on the effects of psychological variables on HNC treatment outcomes.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles that examined psychological factors related to treatment outcomes in patients with HNC.

RESULTS

There were 29 studies (5 before treatment, 2 during, 17 after, and 5 covering the whole management trajectory) including 362,766 patients. The psychological factors were either behavioral (adjustment and coping strategy, unrealistic ideas, self-blame), cognitive (elevated risk of psychiatric co-comorbidity), or emotional (distress, depression, anxiety, nervousness, and fear of disfigurement and complications). It was found that there was a relationship between depression and decreased survival in patients with HNC. Pretreatment pain was an independent predictor of decreased survival in a large sample of patients. The distress level was approximately  54%, emotional problems ranged between 10 and 44%, while financial difficulties were identified in 54% of the patients. Sixty-nine percent of patients were reported to have used at least one cost-coping strategy within 6 months after treatment initiation. During post-treatment period, depression increased from 15% at the baseline to 29%, while the fear of recurrence was found among at least 35% of patients.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Several psychological factors predict QoL and survival among HNC survivors. Distress encompasses depression and anxiety, and physical burden from HNC diagnosis and treatment. Routine screening and early interventions that target distress could improve HNC survivors' QoL. A systematic and standardized measurement approach for QoL is warranted to homogenize these findings and to understand the underlying relationships.

Population based study on the progress in survival of primarily metastatic lung cancer patients in Germany

Lung cancer is known for its high mortality; many patients already present with metastases at the time of diagnosis. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of new treatment strategies on the survival of primarily metastatic lung cancer patients and to analyze the differences in outcomes between non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients. Population-based data, provided by the Robert-Koch Institute in Germany, was used and patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2018 were included in the study. We differentiated between NSCLC and SCLC patients and analyzed the survival over time for both sexes separately, using the Kaplan-Meier method. To evaluate survival advantages, we calculated multivariable hazard ratios. In total, 127,723 patients were considered for the study. We observed a moderate increase in survival over time. All patients showed an increased survival rate when undergoing chemotherapy. Minimal to no increase in survival was shown in NSCLC patients when receiving radiotherapy, whereas SCLC patients' survival time did benefit from it. NSCLC patients receiving immunotherapy showed an increase in survival as well. It can be concluded that advancements in radiotherapy, the application of chemotherapy, and the introduction of immunotherapies lead to an increased survival time of both NSCLC and SCLC primarily metastatic lung cancer patients.

Psychosocial factors and patient and healthcare delays in large (class T3-T4) oral, oropharyngeal, and laryngeal carcinomas

BACKGROUND

Psychosocial factors and socioeconomic status have been associated with incidence, survival, and quality of life among patients with head and neck cancer. We investigated the association between different psychosocial factors, socioeconomic status, and patient delays in T3-T4 oral, oropharyngeal, and laryngeal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a nationwide prospective questionnaire-based study (n = 203) over a 3-year period.

RESULTS

We found no association between psychosocial factors (depression, social isolation, loneliness, and cynical hostility) and patient delay. Depression was three times more common among head and neck cancer patients compared with the general Finnish population. Head and neck cancer patients had lower educational levels and employment status, and were more often current smokers and heavy drinkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we found no association between patient delay and psychosocial factors, patients diagnosed with a large head and neck cancer appeared to have a lower socioeconomic status and higher risk for developing depression, which should be considered in clinical practice.

Causes and Ways of Death in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

There is limited literature on the exact causes and ways of death in patients with head and neck cancer. To provide optimal care, especially in the palliative phase, more information on this is needed.

Objective

To provide insights into the causes and ways of death among patients with head and neck cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included a consecutive population of patients who received a diagnosis of primary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck between January 2006 and December 2013 who were treated in the Erasmus MC. Patient data were merged with nonpublic microdata from Statistics Netherlands. Follow-up time was specified as the date of diagnosis until death or December 3, 2019, whichever came first. The data were checked and reanalyzed in November 2023.

Main outcomes and Measures

Causes (eg, head and neck cancer, other cancer) and ways (eg, natural death, suicide) of death.

Results

A total of 1291 patients (59.2%; 342 women [26.5%]) died during follow-up (median [IQR] follow-up, 2.7 [1.2-5.6] years). The main cause of death was head and neck cancer (557 [43.1%]), followed by the competing cause of other cancers (344 [26.6%]). In total, 240 patients (18.6%) received palliative sedation and 70 patients (5.4%) euthanasia. Compared with patients with head and neck cancer as the underlying cause of death, lower odds ratios (ORs) were observed for receiving palliative sedation (OR, 0.32 vs 0.07; 95% CI, 0.22-0.46 vs 0.03-0.12) and euthanasia (OR, 0.22 vs 0.01; 95% CI, 0.11-0.41 vs 0-0.107) in patients with other causes of death. Patients with a middle and high income had higher ORs for receiving palliative sedation (OR, 1.46 vs 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-2.04 vs 1.22-2.85) or euthanasia (OR, 2.25 vs 3.37; 95% CI, 1.18-4.3, 1.6-7.12) compared with low-income patients. Retired patients had lower ORs for receiving palliative sedation or euthanasia compared with employed patients (OR, 0.56 vs 0.44; 95% CI, 0.39-0.8 vs 0.24-0.82).

Conclusion and Relevance

The results of this cohort study suggest that more than half of the patients died of competing causes and palliative sedation and euthanasia were more common in patients with head and neck cancer as the underlying cause of death. Patients with a higher socioeconomic status had higher odds of receiving palliative sedation and euthanasia. These insights may support health care professionals in providing patient-centered care, especially for patients in the palliative phase.

Association of Household Income at Diagnosis With Financial Toxicity, Health Utility, and Survival in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer

Importance

While several studies have documented a link between socioeconomic status and survival in head and neck cancer, nearly all have used ecologic, community-based measures. Studies using more granular patient-level data are lacking.

Objective

To determine the association of baseline annual household income with financial toxicity, health utility, and survival.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a prospective cohort of adult patients with head and neck cancer treated at a tertiary cancer center in Toronto, Ontario, between September 17, 2015, and December 19, 2019. Data analysis was performed from April to December 2021.

Exposures

Annual household income at time of diagnosis.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcome of interest was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included subjective financial toxicity, measured using the Financial Index of Toxicity (FIT) tool, and health utility, measured using the Health Utilities Index Mark 3. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association between household income and survival. Income was regressed onto log-transformed FIT scores using linear models. The association between income and health utility was explored using generalized linear models. Generalized estimating equations were used to account for patient-level clustering.

Results

There were 555 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.7 [10.7] years; 109 [20%] women and 446 [80%] men) included in this cohort. Two-year disease-free survival was worse for patients in the bottom income quartile (<$30 000: 67%; 95% CI, 58%-78%) compared with the top quartile (≥$90 000: 88%; 95% CI, 83%-93%). In risk-adjusted models, patients in the bottom income quartile had inferior disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.22-3.71) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.94-4.29), when compared with patients in the highest quartile. The average FIT score was 22.6 in the lowest income quartile vs 11.7 in the highest quartile. In adjusted analysis, low-income patients had 12-month FIT scores that were, on average, 134% higher (worse) (95% CI, 16%-253%) than high-income patients. Similarly, health utility scores were, on average, 0.104 points lower (95% CI, 0.026-0.182) for low-income patients in adjusted analysis.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, patients with head and neck cancer with a household income less than CAD$30 000 experienced worse financial toxicity, health status, and disease-free survival. Significant disparities exist for Ontario's patients with head and neck cancer.

German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD): Revision, update and applications

Background

Regional deprivation indices enable researchers to analyse associations between socioeconomic disadvantages and health outcomes even if the health data of interest does not include information on the individuals' socioeconomic position. This article introduces the recent revision of the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD) and presents associations with life expectancy as well as age-standardised cardiovascular mortality rates and cancer incidences as applications.

Methods

The GISD measures the level of socioeconomic deprivation using administrative data of education, employment, and income situations at the district and municipality level from the INKAR database. The indicators are weighted via principal component analyses. The regional distribution is depicted cartographically, regional level associations with health outcomes are presented.

Results

The principal component analysis indicates medium to high correlations of the indicators with the index subdimensions. Correlation analyses show that in districts with the lowest deprivation, the average life expectancy of men is approximately six years longer (up to three years longer for women) than for those from districts with the highest deprivation. A similar social gradient is observed for cardiovascular mortality and lung cancer incidence.

Conclusions

The GISD provides a valuable tool to analyse socioeconomic inequalities in health conditions, diseases, and their determinants at the regional level.

Socioeconomic disparities in endometrial cancer survival in Germany: a survival analysis using population-based cancer registry data

PURPOSE

Area-based socioeconomic deprivation has been established as an important indicator of health and a potential predictor of survival. In this study, we aimed to measure the effect of socioeconomic inequality on endometrial cancer survival.

METHODS

Population-based data on patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer between 2004 and 2014 were obtained from the German Centre for Cancer Registry Data. Socioeconomic inequality was defined by the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation. We investigated the association of deprivation and overall survival through Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 21,602 women, with a mean age of 67.8 years, were included in our analysis. The observed 5-year overall survival time for endometrial cancer patients living in the most affluent districts (first quintile) was 78.6%. The overall survival rate decreased as the level of deprivation increased (77.2%, 73.9%, 76.1%, 74.7%, for patients in the second, third, fourth, and fifth quintile (most deprived patients), respectively). Cox regression models showed stage I patients living in the most deprived districts to have a higher hazard of overall mortality when compared to the cases living in the most affluent districts [Hazard ratio: 1.20; 95% Confidence interval (0.99-1.47)] after adjusting for age, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate differences in endometrial cancer survival according to socioeconomic deprivation among stage I patients. Considering data limitations, future studies with access to individual-level patient information should be conducted to examine the underlying causes for the observed disparity in cancer survival.

Sozioökonomische Benachteiligung als Risikofaktor für Krebserkrankungen – „closing the care gap“

Armut ist ein Risikofaktor für Krebs. Menschen aus sozioökonomisch benachteiligten Gesellschaftsschichten erkranken häufiger und früher an Krebs, haben nach Diagnosestellung oftmals eine kürzere Lebenserwartung und profitieren hinsichtlich des Gesamtüberlebens weniger von der Therapie. Diese Beobachtung hat sich im Zuge der COVID-19-Pandemie weiter verschärft. Im vorliegenden Beitrag stellen wir zusammengefasst Ergebnisse für Deutschland dar, die diesen Zusammenhang illustrieren. Methodisch greifen wir dazu auf Erkenntnisse zurück, die sich auf individuelle Marker wie das individuelle Einkommen oder auf regionale Indizes sozialer Deprivation wie den German Index of Multiple Deprivation (GIMD) konzentrieren. Das Konzept der Klassenmedizin hinterfragt strukturelle Bedingungen, die dazu führen, dass das Versorgungssystem und die Behandler*innen selbst bestehende Unterschiede weiter fördern, anstatt diese auszugleichen. Faktoren der Ungleichheit in der Versorgung von Menschen gerade mit onkologischen Erkrankungen, seien sie sozioökonomischer, geschlechtsspezifischer oder ethnischer Art, müssen besser erfasst werden, um eine gerechte und gleichwertige Behandlung aller Menschen zu gewährleisten.