No socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer survival within a randomised clinical trial

Inequalities in treatment among patients with colon and rectal cancer: a multistate survival model using data from England national cancer registry 2012-2016

BACKGROUND

Individual and tumour factors only explain part of observed inequalities in colorectal cancer survival in England. This study aims to investigate inequalities in treatment in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer in England between 2012 and 2016 were followed up from the date of diagnosis (state 1), to treatment (state 2), death (state 3) or censored at 1 year after the diagnosis. A multistate approach with flexible parametric model was used to investigate the effect of income deprivation on the probability of remaining alive and treated in colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

Compared to the least deprived quintile, the most deprived with stage I-IV colorectal cancer had a lower probability of being alive and treated at all the time during follow-up, and a higher probability of being untreated and of dying. The probability differences (most vs. least deprived) of being alive and treated at 6 months ranged between -2.4% (95% CI: -4.3, -1.1) and -7.4% (-9.4, -5.3) for colon; between -2.0% (-3.5, -0.4) and -6.2% (-8.9, -3.5) for rectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

Persistent inequalities in treatment were observed in patients with colorectal cancer at every stage, due to delayed access to treatment and premature death.

Socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer survival: contributions of prognostic factors in a large Australian cohort

Purpose

We quantified the contributions of prognostic factors to socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer survival in a large Australian cohort.

Methods

The sample comprised 45 and Up Study participants (recruited 2006–2009) who were subsequently diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Both individual (education attained) and neighbourhood socioeconomic measures were used. Questionnaire responses were linked with cancer registrations (to December 2013), records for hospital inpatient stays, emergency department presentations, death information (to December 2015), and Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits claims for subsidised procedures and medicines. Proportions of socioeconomic survival differences explained by prognostic factors were quantified using multiple Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

1720 eligible participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer after recruitment: 1174 colon and 546 rectal cancers. Significant colon cancer survival differences were only observed for neighbourhood socioeconomic measure (p = 0.033): HR = 1.55; 95% CI 1.09–2.19 for lowest versus highest quartile, and disease-related factors explained 95% of this difference. For rectal cancer, patient- and disease-related factors were the main drivers of neighbourhood survival differences (28–36%), while these factors and treatment-related factors explained 24–41% of individual socioeconomic differences. However, differences remained significant for rectal cancer after adjusting for all these factors.

Conclusion

In this large contemporary Australian cohort, we identified several drivers of socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer survival. Understanding of the role these contributors play remains incomplete, but these findings suggest that improving access to optimal care may significantly reduce these survival disparities.

Are socio-economic inequalities in breast cancer survival explained by peri-diagnostic factors?

BACKGROUND

Patients living in more deprived localities have lower cancer survival in England, but the role of individual health status at diagnosis and the utilisation of primary health care in explaining these differentials has not been widely considered. We set out to evaluate whether pre-existing individual health status at diagnosis and primary care consultation history (peri-diagnostic factors) could explain socio-economic differentials in survival amongst women diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women aged 15-99 years diagnosed in England using linked routine data. Ecologically-derived measures of income deprivation were combined with individually-linked data from the English National Cancer Registry, Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) databases. Smoking status, alcohol consumption, BMI, comorbidity, and consultation histories were derived for all patients. Time to breast surgery was derived for women diagnosed after 2005. We estimated net survival and modelled the excess hazard ratio of breast cancer death using flexible parametric models. We accounted for missing data using multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Net survival was lower amongst more deprived women, with a single unit increase in deprivation quintile inferring a 4.4% (95% CI 1.4-8.8) increase in excess mortality. Peri-diagnostic co-variables varied by deprivation but did not explain the differentials in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that socio-economic inequalities in survival cannot be explained by consultation history or by pre-existing individual health status, as measured in primary care. Differentials in the effectiveness of treatment, beyond those measuring the inclusion of breast surgery and the timing of surgery, should be considered as part of the wider effort to reduce inequalities in premature mortality.

Social Inequalities in Cancer Survival in Belgium: A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important factor in cancer survival; however, results are heterogeneous and linked to characteristics of the study population and health care system. This population-based cohort study evaluates the association between individual-level socioeconomic and demographic factors and cancer survival for the first time in Belgium.

METHODS

From the Belgian Cancer Registry, we identified 109,591 patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2013 with one of eight common cancer types. Information on treatment, socioeconomic parameters, and vital status were retrieved from multiple data sources and linked using a unique personal identification number. The outcome was 5-year observed survival. Associations between survival and socioeconomic and demographic factors were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional-hazard regression models.

RESULTS

Lower income, unemployment, and living alone were all associated with worse cancer survival. These associations were most pronounced for certain lifestyle-related cancer types (e.g., head and neck cancers) and those with good to moderate prognosis (e.g., colorectal and female breast cancer).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that, despite a comprehensive and nationwide health insurance program in which equity in rights and access to health care are pursued, SES is associated with disparities in cancer survival in Belgium.

IMPACT

This population-based study with individual-level socioeconomic information of more than 100,000 patients with cancer identifies patient groups that may be at highest risk for socioeconomic disparities in cancer survival. Reasons behind the observed disparities are multiple and complex and should be further examined. Health policy interventions should consider the observed deprivation gap to plan targeted actions.

Geographical variations in cancer mortality and social inequalities in southern Spain (Andalusia). 2002-2013

INTRODUCTION

Geographical variations in cancer mortality can be explained, in part, by their association with social inequalities. The objective of our study was to analyse the spatial pattern of mortality in relation to the most common causes of cancer in the Spanish autonomous community of Andalusia and its possible association with social inequalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A small area cross-sectional study in Andalusia, with census tracts as units of spatial analysis, for the period 2002-2013. Cases and person-years, sex and age group came from the Longitudinal Population Database of Andalusia. Standardized mortality rates and smoothed risk ratios were calculated using the Besag, York and Mollié model for lung, colorectal, breast, prostate, bladder and stomach cancer. In order to evaluate the association with social inequalities we included the deprivation index of the census tract as a covariate.

RESULTS

The results show an East-West mortality pattern with higher risk in the west for lung and bladder cancer among men, and breast cancer among women. For all of Andalusia, the association between deprivation index of the census tract and mortality relative risks is positive and significant for lung, stomach and bladder cancers in men, while in women we observed a negative association for lung cancer and a positive for stomach cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge regarding the spatial distribution of cancer mortality and the socioeconomic inequalities related should contribute to the design of specific health and social policies-aimed at tackling cancer mortality and social inequalities in areas of high mortality and/or levels of deprivation.

Low Socioeconomic Status Is Associated with Worse Outcomes After Curative Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: Results from a Large, Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with early mortality in cancer patients. However, the association between SES and outcome in colorectal cancer patients is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether SES is associated with short- and long-term outcome in patients undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative surgery in the region of Rotterdam for stage I-III colorectal cancer between January 2007 and July 2014 were included. Gross household income and survival status were obtained from a national registry provided by Statistics Netherlands Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Patients were assigned percentiles according to the national income distribution. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression were performed to assess the association of SES with 30-day postoperative complications, overall survival and cancer-specific survival, adjusted for known prognosticators.

RESULTS

For 965 of the 975 eligible patients (99%), gross household income could be retrieved. Patients with a lower SES more often had diabetes, more often underwent an open surgical procedure, and had more comorbidities. In addition, patients with a lower SES were less likely to receive (neo) adjuvant treatment. Lower SES was independently associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications (Odds ratio per percent increase 0.99, 95%CI 0.99-0.998, p = 0.004) and lower cancer-specific mortality (Hazard ratio per percent increase 0.99, 95%CI 0.98-0.99, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that lower SES is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications, and poor cancer-specific survival in patients undergoing surgery for stage I-III colorectal cancer after correcting for known prognosticators.

Understanding the impact of socioeconomic differences in colorectal cancer survival: potential gain in life-years

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer prognosis varies substantially with socioeconomic status. We investigated differences in life expectancy between socioeconomic groups and estimated the potential gain in life-years if cancer-related survival differences could be eliminated.

METHODS

This population-based study included 470,000 individuals diagnosed with colon and rectal cancers between 1998 and 2013 in England. Using flexible parametric survival models, we obtained a range of life expectancy measures by deprivation status. The number of life-years that could be gained if differences in cancer-related survival between the least and most deprived groups were removed was also estimated.

RESULTS

We observed up to 10% points differences in 5-year relative survival between the least and most deprived. If these differences had been eliminated for colon and rectal cancers diagnosed in 2013 then almost 8231 and 7295 life-years would have been gained respectively. This results for instance in more than 1-year gain for each colon cancer male patient in the most deprived group on average. Cancer-related differences are more profound earlier on, as conditioning on 1-year survival the main reason for socioeconomic differences were factors other than cancer.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of policies to eliminate socioeconomic differences in cancer survival as in this way many life-years could be gained.

Socioeconomic differences in selection for liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer and the impact on survival

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival are well recognised. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on survival in patients with synchronous CRC liver-limited metastases, and to investigate if any survival inequalities are explained by differences in liver resection rates.

METHODS

Patients in the National Bowel Cancer Audit diagnosed with CRC between 2010 and 2016 in the English National Health Service were included. Linked Hospital Episode Statistics data were used to identify the presence of liver metastases and whether a liver resection had been performed. Multivariable random-effects logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of liver resection by Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintile. Cox-proportional hazards model was used to compare 3-year survival.

RESULTS

13,656 patients were included, of whom 2213 (16.2%) underwent liver resection. Patients in the least deprived IMD quintile were more likely to undergo liver resection than those in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.70). Patients in the least deprived quintile had better 3-year survival (least deprived vs. most deprived quintile, 22.3% vs. 17.4%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.20, 1.11-1.30). Adjusting for liver resection attenuated, but did not remove, this effect. There was no difference in survival between IMD quintile when restricted to patients who underwent liver resection (adjusted HR 0.97, 0.76-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Deprived CRC patients with synchronous liver-limited metastases have worse survival than more affluent patients. Lower rates of liver resection in more deprived patients is a contributory factor.

Systematic review of the influence of socioeconomic deprivation on mortality after colorectal surgery

Background

Socioeconomic deprivation is a potentially important factor influencing surgical outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence for any association between socioeconomic group and mortality after colorectal surgery, and to report the definitions of deprivation used and the approaches taken to adjust for co-morbidity in this patient population.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched for studies up to November 2016 on adult patients undergoing major colorectal surgery, which reported on mortality according to socioeconomic group. Risk of bias and study quality were assessed by extracting data relating to study size, and variations in inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality was assessed using a modification of a previously described assessment tool.

Results

The literature search identified 59 studies published between 1993 and 2016, reporting on 2 698 403 patients from eight countries. Overall findings showed evidence for higher mortality in more deprived socioeconomic groups, both in the perioperative period and in the longer term. Studies differed in how they defined socioeconomic groups, but the most common approach was to use one of a selection of multifactorial indices based on small geographical areas. There was no consistent approach to adjusting for co-morbidity but, where this was considered, the Charlson Co-morbidity Index was most frequently used.

Conclusion

This systematic review suggests that socioeconomic deprivation influences mortality after colorectal surgery.

Persistent inequalities in 90-day colon cancer mortality: an English cohort study

BACKGROUND

Variation in colon cancer mortality occurring shortly after diagnosis is widely reported between socio-economic status (SES) groups: we investigated the role of different prognostic factors in explaining variation in 90-day mortality.

METHODS

National cancer registry data were linked with national clinical audit data and Hospital Episode Statistics records for 69 769 adults diagnosed with colon cancer in England between January 2010 and March 2013. By gender, logistic regression was used to estimate the effects of SES, age and stage at diagnosis, comorbidity and surgical treatment on probability of death within 90 days from diagnosis. Multiple imputations accounted for missing stage. We predicted conditional probabilities by prognostic factor patterns and estimated the effect of SES (deprivation) from the difference between deprivation-specific average predicted probabilities.

RESULTS

Ninety-day probability of death rose with increasing deprivation, even after accounting for the main prognostic factors. When setting the deprivation level to the least deprived group for all patients and keeping all other prognostic factors as observed, the differences between deprivation-specific averaged predicted probabilities of death were greatly reduced but persisted. Additional analysis suggested stage and treatment as potential contributors towards some of these inequalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Further examination of delayed diagnosis, access to treatment and post-operative care by deprivation group may provide additional insights into understanding deprivation disparities in mortality.

A systematic review of geographical differences in management and outcomes for colorectal cancer in Australia

BACKGROUND

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world, presenting considerable health, economic, and societal burden. Over a third of the Australian population live in regional areas and research has shown they experience a range of health disadvantages that result in a higher disease burden and lower life expectancy. The extent to which geographical disparities exist in CRC management and outcomes has not been systematically explored. The present review aims to identify the nature of geographical disparities in CRC survival, clinical management, and psychosocial outcomes.

METHODS

The review followed PRISMA guidelines and searches were undertaken using seven databases covering articles between 1 January 1990 and 20 April 2016 in an Australian setting. Inclusion criteria stipulated studies had to be peer-reviewed, in English, reporting data from Australia on CRC patients and relevant to one of fourteen questions examining geographical variations in a) survival outcomes, b) patient and cancer characteristics, c) diagnostic and treatment characteristics and d) psychosocial and quality of life outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight quantitative, two qualitative, and three mixed-methods studies met review criteria. Twenty-seven studies were of high quality, sixteen studies were of moderate quality, and no studies were found to be low quality. Individuals with CRC living in regional, rural, and remote areas of Australia showed poorer survival and experienced less optimal clinical management. However, this effect is likely moderated by a range of other factors (e.g., SES, age, gender) and did appear to vary linearly with increasing distance from metropolitan centres. No studies examined differences in use of stoma, or support with stomas, by geographic location.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, despite evidence of disparity in CRC survival and clinical management across geographic locations, the evidence was limited and at times inconsistent. Further, access to treatment and services may not be the main driver of disparities, with individual patient characteristics and type of region also playing an important role. A better understanding of factors driving ongoing and significant geographical disparities in cancer related outcomes is required to inform the development of effective interventions to improve the health and welfare of regional Australians.

No inequalities in survival from colorectal cancer by education and socioeconomic deprivation - a population-based study in the North Region of Portugal, 2000-2002

BACKGROUND

Association between cancer survival and socioeconomic status has been reported in various countries but it has never been studied in Portugal. We aimed here to study the role of education and socioeconomic deprivation level on survival from colorectal cancer in the North Region of Portugal using a population-based cancer registry dataset.

METHODS

We analysed a cohort of patients aged 15-84 years, diagnosed with a colorectal cancer in the North Region of Portugal between 2000 and 2002. Education and socioeconomic deprivation level was assigned to each patient based on their area of residence. We measured socioeconomic deprivation using the recently developed European Deprivation Index. Net survival was estimated using Pohar-Perme estimator and age-adjusted excess hazard ratios were estimated using parametric flexible models. Since no deprivation-specific life tables were available, we performed a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the results to life tables adjusted for education and socioeconomic deprivation level.

RESULTS

A total of 4,105 cases were included in the analysis. In male patients (56.3 %), a pattern of worse 5- and 10-year net survival in the less educated (survival gap between extreme education groups: -7 % and -10 % at 5 and 10 years, respectively) and more deprived groups (survival gap between extreme EDI groups: -5 % both at 5 and 10 years) was observed when using general life tables. No such clear pattern was found among female patients. In both sexes, when likely differences in background mortality by education or deprivation were accounted for in the sensitivity analysis, any differences in net survival between education or deprivation groups vanished.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that observed differences in survival by education and EDI level are most likely attributable to inequalities in background survival. Also, it confirms the importance of using the relevant life tables and of performing sensitivity analysis when evaluating socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival. Comparison studies of different healthcare systems organization should be performed to better understand its influence on cancer survival inequalities.

What might explain deprivation-specific differences in the excess hazard of breast cancer death amongst screen-detected women? Analysis of patients diagnosed in the West Midlands region of England from 1989 to 2011

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survival is higher in less deprived women, even amongst women whose tumor was screen-detected, but reasons behind this have not been comprehensively investigated.

METHODS

The excess hazard of breast cancer death in 20,265 women diagnosed with breast cancer, followed up to 2012, was estimated for screen-detected and non-screen-detected women, comparing more deprived to less deprived women using flexible parametric models. Models were adjusted for individual and tumor factors, treatment received and comorbidity. For screen-detected women, estimates were also corrected for lead-time and overdiagnosis.

RESULTS

The excess hazard ratio (EHR) of breast cancer death in the most deprived group, adjusted only for age and year of diagnosis, was twice that of the least deprived among screen-detected women (EHR=2.12, 95%CI 1.48-2.76) and 64% higher among non-screen-detected women (EHR=1.64, 95%CI 1.41-1.87). Adjustment for stage at diagnosis lowered these estimates by 25%. Further adjustment had little extra impact. In the final models, the excess hazard for the most deprived women was 54% higher (EHR=1.54, 95%CI 1.10-1.98) among screen-detected women and 39% higher (EHR=1.39, 95%CI 1.20-1.59) among non-screen-detected women.

CONCLUSION

A persistent socio-economic gradient in breast cancer-related death exists in this cohort, even for screen-detected women. The impact of differential lifestyles, management and treatment warrant further investigation.

Socioeconomic disparities in childhood cancer survival in Switzerland

In this study, we investigated whether childhood cancer survival in Switzerland is influenced by socioeconomic status (SES), and if disparities vary by type of cancer and definition of SES (parental education, living condition, area-based SES). Using Cox proportional hazards models, we analyzed 5-year cumulative mortality in all patients registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry diagnosed 1991-2006 below 16 years. Information on SES was extracted from the Swiss census by probabilistic record linkage. The study included 1602 children (33% with leukemia, 20% with lymphoma, 22% with central nervous system (CNS) tumors); with an overall 5-year survival of 77% (95%CI 75-79%). Higher SES, particularly parents' education, was associated with a lower 5-year cumulative mortality. Results varied by type of cancer with no association for leukemia and particularly strong effects for CNS tumor patients, where mortality hazard ratios for the different SES indicators, comparing the highest with the lowest group, ranged from 0.48 (95%CI: 0.28-0.81) to 0.71 (95%CI: 0.44-1.15). We conclude that even in Switzerland with a high quality health care system and mandatory health insurance, socioeconomic differences in childhood cancer survival persist. Factors causing these survival differences have to be further explored, to facilitate universal access to optimal treatment and finally eliminate social inequalities in childhood cancer survival.

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.

Socioeconomic inequalities in relative survival of rectal cancer most obvious in stage III

INTRODUCTION

The association between socioeconomic status (SES) and relative survival of rectal cancer is little investigated. We hypothesized that the impact on risk of death by SES would be much smaller when differences in background mortality (comorbidity, lifestyle factors) were taken into account, i.e. in modelling relative survival of rectal cancer.

METHODS

Individual data on civil status, education, and income were linked to the Swedish Rectal Cancer Registry 1995-2005 (n = 16,713). Specific life tables by socioeconomic group were used to calculate relative survival, and modelling included age, sex, stage, time period, and SES. The same covariates were applied in a Cox regression based on absolute survival.

RESULTS

Stage distribution was associated with civil status, education, and income (p < 0.001). In spite of modelling based on relative survival, an increased risk of death was found for all other patients compared with those who were married, as well as for all other patients compared with those with the highest income. The pattern was fundamentally the same as in a Cox regression model, only the point estimates were slightly reduced using the relative approach. In stage-specific modelling of relative survival, income was of particular importance in stage III; the hazard ratio (HR) for lowest versus the highest income was 1.37 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.15-1.64]. There were also significant differences by income among patients who had a major surgical resection (stage IV excluded).

CONCLUSION

Large and clinically relevant socioeconomic inequalities remained in stage-adjusted analyses of relative survival, also in a setting of universal healthcare and no screening program operating.

No socioeconomic inequalities in ovarian cancer survival within two randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among cancers of the female genital tract, with poor outcomes despite chemotherapy. There was a persistent socioeconomic gradient in 1-year survival in England and Wales for more than 3 decades (1971-2001). Inequalities in 5-year survival persisted for more than 20 years but have been smaller for women diagnosed around 2000. We explored one possible explanation.

METHODS

We analysed data on 1406 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 1991-1998 and recruited to one of two randomised clinical trials. In the second International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON2) trial, women diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 were randomised to receive either the three-drug combination cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) or single-agent carboplatin given at optimal dose. In the ICON3 trial, women diagnosed during 1995-1998 were randomised to receive either the same treatments as ICON2, or paclitaxel plus carboplatin.Relative survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was estimated for women in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. The excess hazard of death over and above background mortality was estimated by fitting multivariable regression models with Poisson error structure and a dedicated link function in a generalised linear model framework, adjusting for the duration of follow-up and the confounding effects of age, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and calendar period.

RESULTS

Unlike women with ovarian cancer in the general population, no statistically significant socioeconomic gradient was seen for women with ovarian cancer treated in the two randomised controlled trials. The deprivation gap in 1-year relative survival in the general population was statistically significant at -6.7% (95% CI (-8.1, -5.3)), compared with -3.6% (95% CI (-10.4, +3.2)) in the trial population.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ovarian cancer survival is significantly lower among poor women than rich women in England and Wales, there was no evidence of an association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival among women with ovarian cancer who were treated and followed up consistently in two well-conducted randomised controlled trials. We conclude that the persistent socioeconomic gradient in survival among women with ovarian cancer, at least for 1-year survival, may be due to differences in access to treatment and standards of care.

Deprivation and access to treatment for colorectal cancer in Southeast Scotland 2003-2009

AIM

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with poorer survival from colorectal cancer. We examined the association of deprivation with access to treatment, disease stage at presentation and choice of treatment for colorectal cancer within a regional managed clinical network.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the Southeast Scotland Cancer Network colorectal database for the period 2003-2009. Socioeconomic status was assigned into five categories using postcode of residence and the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation score. Outcomes were access to consultation and treatment, stage of disease at presentation and treatment factors (type of surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy).

RESULTS

Of 4960 colorectal cancer patients, 4016 patients (81%) underwent operative treatment. Deprivation was not associated with age, gender, tumour site, disease stage, delay in treatment pathway or permanent stoma rate. Primary tumour resection (P = 0.006) and chemotherapy treatment (P = 0.018) were higher in the least deprived compared with the most deprived quintile. Socioeconomic status was associated with both primary tumour resection [odds ratio for the most affluent compared with the most deprived quintiles (OR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-1.72, P = 0.018] and chemotherapy treatment (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.15-1.80, P = 0.001). However, when health board of treatment was added to the model, only chemotherapy treatment was independently associated with deprivation (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.16-1.83, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Deprivation is not associated with treatment delay or more advanced disease stage at presentation. An apparent association between deprivation and treatment choice may be explained by other differences between patients treated in different areas.

Advanced testicular cancer in a society of racial and socio-economic health disparity

This is the case of an African-American man who presented with a 6 month history of impressive unilateral testicular swelling and abdominal pain. After a thorough workup he was found to have metastatic testicular seminoma causing multiple complex sequelae. This case highlights the essential diagnostic and therapeutic features of a common malignancy seen primarily in young men. His advanced disease presentation, complex management of multiple comorbidities combined with his African-American race and lower socio-economic status (SES) highlight an unusual paradigm shift in testicular cancer epidemiology from the more typical high SES Caucasian to the lower SES, less educated male patient. Beyond the unexpected clinical presentation, this case then presents multiple avenues of discussion regarding the unfortunate effects of racial disparities on disease presentation and progression that are plaguing our healthcare system today.

Influence of socioeconomic environment on survival in patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer: a population-based study

The influence of social environment on survival in patients with cancer has been demonstrated in many studies, subjects living in the most deprived areas having a poorer prognosis. Geographic remoteness and limited access to specialized care centers are often associated with socioeconomic deprivation. The aim was to assess the influence of social environment and geographic remoteness on the relative survival of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer between 1997 and 2004 in the department of Calvados in France. The study population, which was provided by the Calvados digestive cancer registry, included 629 patients. Relative survival was used to estimate the influence of social environment and geographic remoteness on patient survival. Five-year survival rates were 14.1%, 15.1%, 11.8%, 8.8%, and 11.4%, respectively, for patients living in the least to the most deprived areas (P= 0.39). The influence of social environment was significant after adjustment for clinical variables, patients living in the most deprived areas having the worst survival. These discrepancies cannot totally be explained by differences in access to care, cancer extension, or morphology at diagnosis. No association was observed between distance to the nearest cancer center and survival. Social environment appears to induce disparities among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer, with a worse prognosis for patients living in the most deprived areas.

Socio-geographical determinants of colonoscopy uptake after faecal occult blood test

BACKGROUND

Survival from colorectal cancer is poorer in patients of lower socioeconomic level, or living far from the cancer reference centre.

AIMS

To evaluate the impact of material deprivation and geographical remoteness on the uptake of colonoscopy after a positive screening faecal occult blood test.

METHODS

Data from two large French average-risk population-based trials comparing two faecal occult blood tests were used. Compliance with colonoscopy after a positive faecal occult blood test was analysed using a logistic model and a Cox model considering time between faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy. Covariates studied were sex, age, distance to nearest gastroenterologist, distance to regional capital, and Townsend's deprivation score.

RESULTS

Amongst 4320 eligible subjects, 4131 were included. The rate of colonoscopy was 83.8%, within a median time of 66.0 days after faecal occult blood test. Distance to regional capital (p-trend=0.02) and study centre (p<0.0001) were independently associated with colonoscopy uptake. Time from positive faecal occult blood test to colonoscopy, was associated only with distance to the regional capital (p<0.0001, multivariate model stratified on study centre).

CONCLUSION

Geographical remoteness but not material deprivation was responsible for lower uptake of colonoscopy. Healthcare decision-makers should focus on geographical remoteness to promote equal access to diagnostic procedures in faecal occult blood test colorectal cancer screening programmes.

[Social inequalities in health from observational studies to intervention: can the patient navigator reduce social inequalities in cancer patients?]

The impact of social factors on healthcare inequality is well-recognized in many industrialized countries and involves a wide range of pathological conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc.). In general, the poorest indicators of health are observed in socially disadvantaged populations. Beyond this observation is the question of actions taken to prevent the formation of social inequality in healthcare. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the potential contribution of an intervention tool called the "patient navigator", used in English-speaking countries and to determine its feasibility in France.

Surgical management and outcomes of colorectal cancer liver metastases

BACKGROUND

This population-based study investigated the frequency of hepatic resections for colorectal cancer metastases across England and their outcome.

METHODS

Individuals who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer between January 1998 and June 2004 within the English National Health Service were identified via the National Cancer Data Repository. All episodes of care in the 3 years after the initial operation were examined to determine the frequency of liver resection. Variations in the use of liver resection and survival were assessed.

RESULTS

Some 114 155 individuals underwent surgery for colorectal cancer over the study period, of whom 3116 (2.7 per cent) subsequently had one or more hepatic resections. The hepatectomy rate increased from 1.7 per cent in 1998 to 3.8 per cent in 2004. There was significant variation in the rate of liver resection across cancer networks (range 1.1-4.3 per cent) and hospitals (range 0.7-6.8 per cent). The crude 5-year survival rate after liver resection was 44.2 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 42.4 to 46.1) per cent from the time of hepatectomy and 45.9 (95 per cent c.i. 44.1 to 47.7) per cent from the time of colectomy. This was comparable to the 5-year survival rate of patients with stage III disease (42.2 (95 per cent c.i. 41.7 to 42.7) per cent).

CONCLUSION

The rate of resection of liver metastases increased over the study period but varied significantly across the country. Patients who underwent liver resection had 5-year survival comparable to that of patients with stage III colorectal cancer.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in England after the NHS cancer plan

Background:

Socioeconomic inequalities in survival were observed for many cancers in England during 1981–1999. The NHS Cancer Plan (2000) aimed to improve survival and reduce these inequalities. This study examines trends in the deprivation gap in cancer survival after implementation of the Plan.

Materials and method:

We examined relative survival among adults diagnosed with 1 of 21 common cancers in England during 1996–2006, followed up to 31 December 2007. Three periods were defined: 1996–2000 (before the Cancer Plan), 2001–2003 (initialisation) and 2004–2006 (implementation). We estimated the difference in survival between the most deprived and most affluent groups (deprivation gap) at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis, and the change in the deprivation gap both within and between these periods.

Results:

Survival improved for most cancers, but inequalities in survival were still wide for many cancers in 2006. Only the deprivation gap in 1-year survival narrowed slightly over time. A majority of the socioeconomic disparities in survival occurred soon after a cancer diagnosis, regardless of the cancer prognosis.

Conclusion:

The recently observed reduction in the deprivation gap was minor and limited to 1-year survival, suggesting that, so far, the Cancer Plan has little effect on those inequalities. Our findings highlight that earlier diagnosis and rapid access to optimal treatment should be ensured for all socioeconomic groups.

Socio-economic disparities in access to treatment and their impact on colorectal cancer survival

BACKGROUND

Significant socio-economic disparities have been reported in survival from colorectal cancer in a number of countries, which remain largely unexplained. We assessed whether possible differences in access to treatment among socio-economic groups may contribute to those disparities, using a population-based approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 71 917 records of colorectal cancer patients, diagnosed between 1997 and 2000, linked to area-level socio-economic information (Townsend index), from three cancer registries in UK. Access to treatment was measured as a function of delay in receipt of treatment. We assessed socio-economic differences in access through logistic regression models. Based on relative survival < or =3 years after diagnosis, we estimated excess hazard ratios (EHRs) of death for different socio-economic groups.

RESULTS

Compared with more affluent patients, deprived patients had poorer survival [EHR = 1.20; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-1.25], were less likely to receive any treatment within 6 months [odds ratio (OR) = 0.87, 95% CI 0.82-0.92] and, if treated, were more likely to receive late treatment. No disparities in survival were detected among patients receiving treatment within 1 month from diagnosis. Disparities existed among patients receiving later or no treatment (EHR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.22-1.39), and persisted after adjustment for age and stage at diagnosis (EHR = 1.15; 95% CI 1.08-1.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Tumour stage helped explain socio-economic disparities in colorectal cancer survival. Disparities were also greatly attenuated among patients receiving early treatment. Aspects other than those captured by our measure of access, such as quality of care and patient preferences in relation to treatment, might contribute to a fuller explanation.

Trends and variation in the management of oesophagogastric cancer patients: a population-based survey

Background

Previous evidence indicates potential variation in the quality of care of cancer patients. We aimed to examine whether recent changes in the treatment of oesophagogastric cancers have been distributed equally among different patient subgroups.

Methods

We analysed population-based cancer registry data about the treatment patterning of oesophagogastric cancer (other than oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma) during 1995-2006.

Results

There were 14,077 patients aged ≥40 years (69% men). There was only limited information on stage, and no information on co-morbidity status. During successive triennia, curative surgery use decreased from 28% to 20% (p < 0.001) whilst chemotherapy use increased from 9% to 30% (p < 0.001). Use of palliative surgery and of radiotherapy increased significantly but modestly (7% to 10%, and 9% to 11%, respectively). In multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age group, gender, diagnosis period and tumour type, curative surgery and chemotherapy were used less frequently in more deprived patients [per increasing deprivation group Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.93-0.99, and OR = 0.90, 95%CI 0.87-0.93, respectively, p < 0.001 for both)]. Chemotherapy was also used less frequently in women (OR = 0.76, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

During the study period, curative surgery decreased by a third and chemotherapy use increased by more than three-fold, reflecting improvements in the appropriateness and quality of management, but chemotherapy use, in particular, was unequal, both by socioeconomic status and gender.

Socioeconomic deprivation adversely affects survival of patients with rectal cancer

Background

The aim was to examine the influence of socioeconomic deprivation on stage at presentation, perioperative mortality, permanent stoma rates and overall survival in patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Data on patient demographics, mode and stage of presentation, and short- and longer-term outcomes were extracted from a database of patients with rectal cancer. Comparisons were made after stratification into quintiles of socioeconomic deprivation.

Results

In total 486 patients were identified. Fewer patients from the most deprived group than from the least deprived group underwent resectional surgery (79·2 versus 93 per cent; P = 0·005). Permanent stoma rates among patients who had surgery were 40·8 and 30 per cent respectively (P = 0·110). The overall 5-year survival rate was 32·8 per cent for the most deprived compared with 64·0 per cent for the least deprived patients (P &lt; 0·001). Respective rates for those who underwent resectional surgery were 49·9 and 72 per cent (P = 0·030).

Conclusion

In rectal cancer, socioeconomic deprivation appears to be associated with poorer outcomes and survival. This has important implications for healthcare planning.