Dataset Information

Socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Intervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer.

Methods and findings

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR?=?0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR?=?0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p?=?0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR?=?0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p?=?0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems.

Conclusions

Patients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.

SUBMITTER: Forrest LF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3564770 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Forrest Lynne F LF Adams Jean J Wareham Helen H Rubin Greg G White Martin M

PLoS medicine 20130205 2

<h4>Background</h4>Intervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existin ...[more]

PMID: 23393428

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:Selenium is a natural health product widely used in the treatment and prevention of lung cancers, but large chemoprevention trials have yielded conflicting results. We conducted a systematic review of selenium for lung cancers, and assessed potential interactions with conventional therapies.Two independent reviewers searched six databases from inception to March 2009 for evidence pertaining to the safety and efficacy of selenium for lung cancers. Pubmed and EMBASE were searched to October 2009 for evidence on interactions with chemo- or radiation-therapy. In the efficacy analysis there were nine reports of five RCTs and two biomarker-based studies, 29 reports of 26 observational studies, and 41 preclinical studies. Fifteen human studies, one case report, and 36 preclinical studies were included in the interactions analysis. Based on available evidence, there appears to be a different chemopreventive effect dependent on baseline selenium status, such that selenium supplementation may reduce risk of lung cancers in populations with lower baseline selenium status (serum<106 ng/mL), but increase risk of lung cancers in those with higher selenium (? 121.6 ng/mL). Pooling data from two trials yielded no impact to odds of lung cancer, OR 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.61-1.43); other cancers that were the primary endpoints of these trials, OR 1.51 (95%CI 0.70-3.24); and all-cause-death, OR 0.93 (95%CI 0.79-1.10). In the treatment of lung cancers, selenium may reduce cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity and side effects associated with radiation therapy.Selenium may be effective for lung cancer prevention among individuals with lower selenium status, but at present should not be used as a general strategy for lung cancer prevention. Although promising, more evidence on the ability of selenium to reduce cisplatin and radiation therapy toxicity is required to ensure that therapeutic efficacy is maintained before any broad clinical recommendations can be made in this context.

Project description:BackgroundNeglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are generally assumed to be concentrated in poor populations, but evidence on this remains scattered. We describe within-country socioeconomic inequalities in nine NTDs listed in the London Declaration for intensified control and/or elimination: lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminthiasis (STH), trachoma, Chagas' disease, human African trypanosomiasis (HAT), leprosy, and visceral leishmaniasis (VL).MethodologyWe conducted a systematic literature review, including publications between 2004-2013 found in Embase, Medline (OvidSP), Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Popline, Lilacs, and Scielo. We included publications in international peer-reviewed journals on studies concerning the top 20 countries in terms of the burden of the NTD under study.Principal findingsWe identified 5,516 publications, of which 93 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 59 papers reported substantial and statistically significant socioeconomic inequalities in NTD distribution, with higher odds of infection or disease among poor and less-educated people compared with better-off groups. The findings were mixed in 23 studies, and 11 studies showed no substantial or statistically significant inequality. Most information was available for STH, VL, schistosomiasis, and, to a lesser extent, for trachoma. For the other NTDs, evidence on their socioeconomic distribution was scarce. The magnitude of inequality varied, but often, the odds of infection or disease were twice as high among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups compared with better-off strata. Inequalities often took the form of a gradient, with higher odds of infection or disease each step down the socioeconomic hierarchy. Notwithstanding these inequalities, the prevalence of some NTDs was sometimes also high among better-off groups in some highly endemic areas.ConclusionsWhile recent evidence on socioeconomic inequalities is scarce for most individual NTDs, for some, there is considerable evidence of substantially higher odds of infection or disease among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. NTD control activities as proposed in the London Declaration, when set up in a way that they reach the most in need, will benefit the poorest populations in poor countries.

Project description:ObjectiveThere has been an unprecedented rise in infant mortality associated with deprivation in recent years in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland. A healthy pregnancy can have significant impacts on the life chances of children. The objective of this review was to understand the association between individual-level and household-level measures of socioeconomic status and adverse pregnancy outcomes.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesNine databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, ASSIA, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, MIDRIS and Google Scholar) for articles published between 1999 and August 2019. Grey literature searches were also assessed.Study selection criteriaStudies reporting associations between individual-level or household socioeconomic factors on pregnancy outcomes in the UK or Ireland.ResultsAmong the 82 353 search results, 53 821 titles were identified and 35 unique studies met the eligibility criteria. Outcomes reported were neonatal, perinatal and maternal mortality, preterm birth, birth weight and mode of delivery. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. There were significantly increased odds of women from lower levels of occupation/social classes compared with the highest level having stillbirth (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.59, I2 98.62%), neonatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.57, I2 97.09%), perinatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.57, I2 98.69%), preterm birth (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.50, I2 70.97%) and low birth weight (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61, I2 99.85%). Limitations relate to available data, unmeasured confounders and the small number of studies for some outcomes.ConclusionsThis review identified consistent evidence that lower occupational status, especially manual occupations and unemployment, were significantly associated with increased risk of multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes. Strategies to improve pregnancy outcomes should incorporate approaches that address wider determinants of health to provide women and families with the best chances of having a healthy pregnancy and baby and to decrease pregnancy-related health inequalities in the general population.Prospero registration numberPROSPERO CRD42019140893.

Project description:ObjectivesBased on the acknowledged organ-specific immune microenvironment, little is known regarding the efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with lung cancer according to metastatic sites. This meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) vs chemotherapy in patients with lung cancer with liver metastases (LM) or brain metastases (BM).DesignMeta-analysis and systematic review.Data sourcesWe systematically searched in electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science), up to 31 January 2022. We also reviewed the abstracts from major international conferences. Eligibility criteria were randomised controlled phase II or III trials reporting the overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) of LM or BM subsets.Data extraction and synthesisHazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for OS and PFS were extracted and aggregated using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-four randomised controlled trials with available outcomes for patients with BMs or LMs were identified. A total of 1124 patients with BM and 2077 patients with LM were included in the analysis. The pooled OS HR of patients with LMs was 0.83 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), and that of patients without LM 0.73 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.79). LM was associated with less benefits from ICIs. In patients with BM treated with ICIs, the pooled OS HR compared with the control arms was 0.71 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.94). Subgroup analyses by histology suggested that only patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with BM could gain benefit from ICIs (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68). BM negatively influenced efficacy of immunotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer.ConclusionsOur results showed immunotherapy demonstrated efficacy in patients with lung cancer with LM and BM, survival benefits dominantly favoured patients with NSCLC. Patients with lung cancer with LM obtained less benefits from ICIs than those without. Therefore, organ-specific immunotherapeutic approaches should be considered.Prospero registration numberCRD42020212797.

Dataset Information

Socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets