Survival from cancer of the lung in England and Wales up to 2001

Socioeconomic Differences and Lung Cancer Survival-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The impact of socioeconomic differences on cancer survival has been investigated for several cancer types showing lower cancer survival in patients from lower socioeconomic groups. However, little is known about the relation between the strength of association and the level of adjustment and level of aggregation of the socioeconomic status measure. Here, we conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of individual and area-based measures of socioeconomic status with lung cancer survival.

Methods: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we searched for studies on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival in four electronic databases. A study was included if it reported a measure of survival in relation to education, income, occupation, or composite measures (indices). If possible, meta-analyses were conducted for studies reporting on individual and area-based socioeconomic measures.

Results: We included 94 studies in the review, of which 23 measured socioeconomic status on an individual level and 71 on an area-based level. Seventeen studies were eligible to be included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses revealed a poorer prognosis for patients with low individual income (pooled hazard ratio: 1.13, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08–1.19, reference: high income), but not for individual education. Group comparisons for hazard ratios of area-based studies indicated a poorer prognosis for lower socioeconomic groups, irrespective of the socioeconomic measure. In most studies, reported 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates across socioeconomic status groups showed decreasing rates with decreasing socioeconomic status for both individual and area-based measures. We cannot confirm a consistent relationship between level of aggregation and effect size, however, comparability across studies was hampered by heterogeneous reporting of socioeconomic status and survival measures. Only eight studies considered smoking status in the analysis.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest a weak positive association between individual income and lung cancer survival. Studies reporting on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival should consider including smoking status of the patients in their analysis and to stratify by relevant prognostic factors to further explore the reasons for socioeconomic differences. A common definition for socioeconomic status measures is desirable to further enhance comparisons between nations and across different levels of aggregation.

Inequalities in non-small cell lung cancer treatment and mortality

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) comprises approximately 85% of all lung cancer cases, and surgery is the preferred treatment for patients. The National Health Service established Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in 2002 to manage local health needs. We investigate whether PCTs with a lower uptake of surgical treatment are those with above-average mortality 1 year after diagnosis. The applied methods can be used to monitor the performance of any administrative bodies responsible for the management of patients with cancer.

METHODS

All adults diagnosed with NSCLC lung cancer during 1998-2006 in England were identified. We fitted mixed effect logistic models to predict surgical treatment within 6 months after diagnosis, and mortality within 1 year of diagnosis.

RESULTS

Around 10% of the NCSLC patients received curative surgery. Older deprived patients and those who did not receive surgery had much higher odds of death 1 year after being diagnosed with cancer. In total, 69% of the PCTs were below the lower control limit of surgery and have predicted random intercepts above the mean value of zero of the random effect for mortality, whereas 40% were above the upper control limit of mortality within 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our main results suggest the presence of clear geographical variation in the use of surgical treatment of NSCLC and mortality. Mixed-effects models combined with the funnel plot approach were useful for assessing the performance of PCTs that were above average in mortality and below average in surgery.

The impact of age at diagnosis on socioeconomic inequalities in adult cancer survival in England

BACKGROUND

Understanding the age at which persistent socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival become apparent may help motivate and support targeting of cancer site-specific interventions, and tailoring guidelines to patients at higher risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analysed data on more than 40,000 patients diagnosed in England with one of three common cancers in men and women, breast, colon and lung, 2001-2005 with follow-up to the end of 2011. We estimated net survival for each of the five deprivation categories (affluent, 2, 3, 4, deprived), cancer site, sex and age group (15-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65-74 and 75-99 years).

RESULTS

The magnitude and pattern of the age specific socioeconomic inequalities in survival was different for breast, colon and lung. For breast cancer the deprivation gap in 1-year survival widened with increasing age at diagnosis, whereas the opposite was true for lung cancer, with colon cancer having an intermediate pattern. The 'deprivation gap' in 1-year breast cancer survival widened steadily from -0.8% for women diagnosed at 15-44 years to -4.8% for women diagnosed at 75-99 years, and was the widest for women diagnosed at 65-74 years for 5- and 10-year survival. For colon cancer in men, the gap was widest in patients diagnosed aged 55-64 for 1-, 5- and 10-year survival. For lung cancer, the 'deprivation gap' in survival in patients diagnoses aged 15-44 years was more than 10% for 1-year survival in men and for 1- and 5-year survival in women.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that reduction of socioeconomic inequalities in survival will require updating of current guidelines to ensure the availability of optimal treatment and appropriate management of lung cancer patients in all age groups and older patients in deprived groups with breast or colon cancer.

How many deaths would be avoidable if socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England were eliminated? A national population-based study, 1996-2006

AIM

Inequalities in survival between rich and poor have been reported for most adult cancers in England. This study aims to quantify the public health impact of these inequalities by estimating the number of cancer-related deaths that would be avoidable if all patients were to have the same cancer survival as the most affluent patients.

METHODS

National Cancer Registry data for all adults diagnosed with one of 21 common cancers in England were used to estimate relative survival. We estimated the number of excess (cancer-related) deaths that would be avoidable within three years after diagnosis if relative survival for patients in all deprivation groups was as high as the most affluent group.

RESULTS

For patients diagnosed during 2004-2006, 7122 of the 64,940 excess deaths a year (11%) would have been avoidable if three-year survival for all patients had been as high as in the most affluent group. The annual number of avoidable deaths fell from 8435 (13%) a year for patients diagnosed during 1996-2000. Over 60% of the total number of avoidable deaths occurred within six months after diagnosis and approximately 70% occurred in the two most deprived groups.

CONCLUSION

The downward trend in the annual number of avoidable deaths reflects more an improvement in survival in England overall, rather than a narrowing of the deficit in cancer survival between poor and rich. The lack of any substantial change in the percentage of avoidable excess deaths highlights the persistent nature of the deficit in survival between affluent and deprived groups.

Socioeconomic position, stage of lung cancer and time between referral and diagnosis in Denmark, 2001-2008

Introduction:

We investigated the association between socioeconomic position, stage at diagnosis, and length of period between referral and diagnosis in a nationwide cohort of lung cancer patients.

Methods:

Through the Danish Lung Cancer Register, we identified 18 103 persons diagnosed with lung cancer (small cell and non-small cell) in Denmark, 2001–2008, and obtained information on socioeconomic position and comorbidity from nationwide administrative registries. The odds ratio (OR) for a diagnosis of advanced-stage lung cancer (stages IIIB–IV) and for a diagnosis >28 days after referral were analysed by multivariate logistic regression models.

Results:

The adjusted OR for advanced-stage lung cancer was reduced among persons with higher education (OR, 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–0.99), was increased in persons living alone (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01–1.13) and decreased stepwise with increasing comorbidity. Higher education was associated with a reduced OR for >28 days between referral and diagnosis as was high income in early-stage patients. Male gender, age and severe comorbidity were associated with increased ORs in advanced-stage patients.

Interpretation:

Differences by socioeconomic position in stage at diagnosis and in the period between referral and diagnosis indicate that vulnerable patients presenting with lung cancer symptoms require special attention.