Dataset Information

Estimating the impact of a cancer diagnosis on life expectancy by socio-economic group for a range of cancer types in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Differences in cancer survival exist across socio-economic groups for many cancer types. Standard metrics fail to show the overall impact for patients and the population.

Methods

The available data consist of a population of ∼2.5 million patients and include all patients recorded as being diagnosed with melanoma, prostate, bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, ovarian and stomach cancers in England between 1998 and 2013. We estimated the average loss in expectation of life per patient in years and the proportion of life lost for a range of cancer types, separately by deprivation group. In addition, estimates for the total number of years lost due to each cancer were also obtained.

Results

Lung and stomach cancers result in the highest overall loss for males and females in all deprivation groups in terms of both absolute life years lost and loss as a proportion of expected life remaining. Female lung cancer patients in the least- and most-deprived group lose 14.4 and 13.8 years on average, respectively, that is translated as 86.1% and 87.3% of their average expected life years remaining. Melanoma, prostate and breast cancers have the lowest overall loss. On the basis of the number of patients diagnosed in 2013, lung cancer results in the most life years lost in total followed by breast cancer. Melanoma and bladder cancer account for the lowest total life years lost.

Conclusions

There are wide differences in the impact of cancer on life expectancy across deprivation groups, and for most cancers the most affluent lose less years.

SUBMITTER: Syriopoulou E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5672926 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeDespite gains in life expectancy between 1992 to 2012, large disparities in life expectancy continue to exist in the United States between subgroups of the population. This study aimed to develop detailed life tables (LT), accounting for mortality differences by race, geography, and socio-economic status (SES), to more accurately measure relative cancer survival and life expectancy patterns in the United States.MethodsWe estimated an extensive set of County SES-LT by fitting Poisson regression models to deaths and population counts for U.S. counties by age, year, gender, race, ethnicity and county-level SES index. We reported life expectancy patterns and evaluated the impact of the County SES-LT on relative survival using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program cancer registries.ResultsBetween 1992 and 2012, the largest increase in life expectancy was among black men (6.8 years), however there were still large geographical differences. Life expectancy was highest for Asian or Pacific Islanders (API), and lowest for American Indians and Alaskan Natives (AIAN). In 2010, life expectancies by state ranged from 73 to 82 years for white males, 78 to 86 years for white females, 66 to 75 for black males, and 75 to 81 for black females. Comparisons of relative survival using National LT and the new County SES-LT showed that relative survival using County SES-LT improved relative survival estimates for some demographic groups, particularly in low and high SES areas, among Hispanics and AIAN, and among older male cancer patients. Relative survival using County SES-LT was 7.3% and 6.7% survival points closer to cause-specific survival compared to the National LT relative survival for AIAN and Hispanic cancer patients diagnosed between ages 75 and 84 years, respectively. Importantly, the County SES-LT relative survival estimates were higher in lower SES areas and lower in higher SES areas, reducing differences in relative survival comparisons.ConclusionThe use of these new socio-economic life tables (County SES-LT) can provide more accurate estimates of relative survival, improve comparisons of relative survival among registries, better illustrate disparities and cancer control efforts, and should be used as default for cancer relative survival using U.S. data.

Project description:People who live in more deprived areas have poorer health outcomes, and this inequality is a major driver of health and social policy. Many interventions targeting these disparities implicitly assume that poorer health is predominantly associated with area-level factors, and that these inequalities are the same for men and women. However, health differentials due to individual socio-economic status (SES) of men and women are less well documented. We used census data linked to the ONS Longitudinal Study to derive individual-level SES in terms of occupation, education and estimated wage, and examined differences in adult mortality and life expectancy. We modelled age-, sex- and SES-specific mortality using Poisson regression, and summarised mortality differences using life expectancy at age 20. We compared the results to those calculated using area-level deprivation metrics. Wide inequalities in life expectancy between SES groups were observed, although differences across SES groups were smaller for women than for men. The widest inequalities were found across men's education (7.2-year (95% CI: 3.0-10.1) difference in life expectancy between groups) and wage (7.0-year (95% CI: 3.5-9.8) difference), and women's education (5.4-year (95% CI: 2.2-8.1) difference). Men with no qualifications had the lowest life expectancy of all groups. In terms of the number of years' difference in life expectancy, the inequalities measured here with individual-level data were of a similar magnitude to inequalities identified previously using area-level deprivation metrics. These data show that health inequalities are as strongly related to individual SES as to area-level deprivation, highlighting the complementary usefulness of these different metrics. Indeed, poor outcomes are likely to be a product of both community and individual influences. Current policy which bases health spending decisions on evidence of inequalities between geographical areas may overlook individual-level SES inequalities for those living in affluent areas, as well as missing important sex differences.

Project description:BackgroundHead injury in England is common. Evidence suggests that socio-economic factors may cause variation in incidence, and this variation may affect planning for services to meet the needs of those who have sustained a head injury.MethodsSocio-economic data were obtained from the UK Office for National Statistics and merged with Hospital Episodes Statistics obtained from the Department of Health. All patients admitted for head injury with ICD-10 codes S00.0-S09.9 during 2001-2 and 2002-3 were included and collated at the level of the extant Health Authorities (HA) for 2002, and Primary Care Trust (PCT) for 2003. Incidence was determined, and cluster analysis and multiple regression analysis were used to look at patterns and associations.Results112,718 patients were admitted during 2001-2 giving a hospitalised incidence rate for England of 229 per 100,000. This rate varied across the English HA's ranging from 91-419 per 100,000. The rate remained unchanged for 2002-3 with a similar magnitude of variation across PCT's. Three clusters of HA's were identified from the 2001-2 data; those typical of London, those of the Shire counties, and those of Other Urban authorities. Socio-economic factors were found to account for a high proportion of the variance in incidence for 2001-2. The same pattern emerged for 2002-3 at the PCT level. The use of public transport for travel to work is associated with a decreased incidence and lifestyle indicators, such as the numbers of young unemployed, increase the incidence.ConclusionHead injury incidence in England varies by a factor of 4.6 across HA's and PCT's. Planning head injury related services at the local level thus needs to be based on local incidence figures rather than regional or national estimates. Socio-economic factors are shown to be associated with admission, including travel to work patterns and lifestyle indicators, which suggests that incidence is amenable to policy initiatives at the macro level as well as preventive programmes targeted at key groups.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND AIMS:E-cigarettes have the potential either to decrease or increase health inequalities, depending on socio-economic differences in their use and effectiveness. This paper estimated the associations between socio-economic status (SES) and e-cigarette use and examined whether these associations changed between 2014 and 2017. DESIGN:A monthly repeat cross-sectional household survey of adults (16+) between January 2014 and December 2017. This time-period was chosen given that the prevalence of e-cigarette use stabilized in England in late 2013. SETTING:England. PARTICIPANTS:Participants in the Smoking Toolkit Study, a monthly household survey of smoking and smoking cessation among adults (n = 81?063; mean age = 48.4 years, 49% were women) in England. Subsets included past year smokers (n = 16?232; mean age = 42.8, 46% women), smokers during a quit attempt (n = 5305, mean age = 40.6, 49% women) and long-term ex-smokers (n = 13?562, mean age = 59.3, 44% women). MEASUREMENTS:The outcome measure for the analyses was current e-cigarette use. We also included smokers during a quit attempt where use of an e-cigarette during the most recent quit attempt was the outcome measure. Social grade based on occupation was the SES explanatory variable, using the National Readership Survey classification system of AB (higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional), C1 (supervisory, clerical and junior managerial, administrative and professional), C2 (skilled manual workers), D (semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers) and E (state pensioners, casual and lowest-grade workers, unemployed with state benefits only). The analyses were stratified by year to assess the changes in these associations over time. FINDINGS:Among past-year smokers, lower SES groups had lower overall odds of e-cigarette use compared with the highest SES group AB (D: odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.40-0.71; E: 0.67, 0.50-0.89). These differences in e-cigarette use reduced over time. The use of e-cigarettes during a quit attempt showed no clear temporal or socio-economic patterns. Among long-term ex-smokers, use of e-cigarettes increased from 2014 to 2017 among all groups and use was more likely in SES groups C2 (2.03, 1.08-3.96) and D (2.29, 1.13-4.70) compared with AB. CONCLUSIONS:From 2014 to 2017 in England, e-cigarette use was greater among smokers from higher compared with lower socio-economic status (SES) groups, but this difference attenuated over time. Use during a quit attempt was similar throughout SES groups. Use by long-term ex-smokers increased over time among all groups and was consistently more common in lower SES groups.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the impact of socio-economic deprivation on endometrial cancer survival.DesignSingle-centre prospective database study.SettingNorth West England.PopulationWomen with endometrial cancer treated between 2010 and 2015.MethodsAreal-level socio-economic status, using the English indices of multiple deprivation from residential postcodes, was analysed in relation to survival using Kaplan-Meier estimation and multivariable Cox regression.Main outcome measuresOverall survival, cancer-specific survival and patterns and rates of recurrence.ResultsA total of 539 women, with a median age of 66 years (interquartile range, IQR 56-73 years) and a body mass index (BMI) of 32 kg/m2 (IQR 26-39 kg/m2 ), were included in the analysis. Women in the most deprived social group were younger (median 64 years, IQR 55-72 years) and more obese (median 34 kg/m2 , IQR 28-42 kg/m2 ) than women in the least deprived group (median age 68 years, IQR 60-74 years; BMI 29 kg/m2 , IQR 25-36 kg/m2 ; P = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively). There were no differences in endometrial cancer type, stage or grade between social groups. There was no difference in recurrence rates, however, women in the middle and most deprived social groups were more likely to present with distant/metastatic recurrence (80.6 and 79.2%, respectively) than women in the least deprived group (43.5%, P < 0.001). Women in the middle and most deprived groups had a two-fold (adjusted hazard ratio, HR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.07-3.73, P = 0.030) and 53% (adjusted HR = 1.53, 95% CI 0.77-3.04, P = 0.221) increase in cancer-specific mortality compared with women in the least deprived group. There were no differences in overall survival.ConclusionsWe found that socio-economically deprived women with endometrial cancer were more likely to develop fatal recurrence. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and to identify modifiable contributing factors.Tweetable abstractSocio-economic deprivation is linked to an increased risk of death from endometrial cancer in the North West of England.