83
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Variation in incidence of breast, lung and cervical cancer and malignant melanoma of skin by socioeconomic group in England

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 3 , 4 , 5 , 2 , 5 , UK Association of Cancer Registries
      BMC Cancer
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Cancer incidence varies by socioeconomic group and these variations have been linked with environmental and lifestyle factors, differences in access to health care and health seeking behaviour. Socioeconomic variations in cancer incidence by region and age are less clearly understood but they are crucial for targeting prevention measures and health care commissioning.

          Methods

          Data were obtained from all eight English cancer registries for patients diagnosed between 1998 and 2003, for all invasive cases of female breast cancer (ICD-10 code C50), lung cancer (ICD-10 codes C33-C34), cervical cancer (ICD-10 code C53), and malignant melanoma of the skin (ICD-10 code C43). Socioeconomic status was assigned to each patient based on their postcode of residence at diagnosis, using the income domain of the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004. We analysed the socioeconomic variations in the incidence of breast, lung and cervical cancer and malignant melanoma of the skin for England, and regionally and by age.

          Results

          Incidence was highest for the most deprived patients for lung cancer and cervical cancer, whilst the opposite was observed for malignant melanoma and breast cancer. The difference in incidence between the most and the least deprived groups was higher for lung cancer patients aged under 65 at diagnosis than those over 65 at diagnosis, which may indicate a cohort effect. There were regional differences in the socioeconomic gradients with the gap being widest for lung and cervical cancer in the North (North East, North West and Yorkshire and Humberside) and for malignant melanoma in the East and South West. There were only modest variations in breast cancer incidence by region. If the incidence of lung and cervical cancer were decreased to that of the least deprived group it would prevent 36% of lung cancer cases in men, 38% of lung cancer cases in women and 28% of cervical cancer cases. Incidence of breast cancer and melanoma was highest in the least deprived group, therefore if all socioeconomic groups had incidence rates similar to the least deprived group it is estimated that the number of cases would increase by 7% for breast cancer, 27% for melanoma in men and 29% for melanoma in women.

          Conclusion

          National comparison of socioeconomic variations in cancer incidence by region and age can provide an unbiased basis for public health prevention and health commissioning. Decreasing inequalities in incidence requires the integration of information on risk factors, incidence and projected incidence but targeted public health interventions could help to reduce regional inequalities in incidence and reduce the future cancer burden.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Cancer Disparities by Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status

          This article highlights disparities in cancer incidence, mortality, and survival in relation to race/ethnicity, and census data on poverty in the county or census tract of residence. The incidence and survival data derive from the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program; mortality data are from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS); data on the prevalence of major cancer risk factors and cancer screening are from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by NCHS. For all cancer sites combined, residents of poorer counties (those with greater than or equal to 20% of the population below the poverty line) have 13% higher death rates from cancer in men and 3% higher rates in women compared with more affluent counties (less than 10% below the poverty line). Differences in cancer survival account for part of this disparity. Among both men and women, five-year survival for all cancers combined is 10 percentage points lower among persons who live in poorer than in more affluent census tracts. Even when census tract poverty rate is accounted for, however, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander men and African American and American Indian/Alaskan Native women have lower five-year survival than non-Hispanic Whites. More detailed analyses of selected cancers show large variations in cancer survival by race and ethnicity. Opportunities to reduce cancer disparities exist in prevention (reductions in tobacco use, physical inactivity, and obesity), early detection (mammography, colorectal screening, Pap tests), treatment, and palliative care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Origins of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a review.

            Cancer survival is known to vary by socio-economic group. A review of studies published by 1995 showed this association to be universal and resilient to the many different ways in which socio-economic status was determined. Differences were most commonly attributed to differences in stage of disease at diagnosis. A review of research published since 1995 examining the association of cancer survival with socio-economic variables. An association between socio-economic status and cancer survival has continued to be demonstrated in the last decade of research. Stage at diagnosis and differences in treatment have been cited as the most important explanatory factors. Some research has evaluated the psychosocial elements of this association. Socio-economic differences in cancer survival are now well documented. The explanatory power of stage at diagnosis, although great, should not detract from the evidence of differential treatment between social groups. Neither factor can completely explain the observed socio-economic differences in survival, however, and the importance of differences in tumour and patient factors should now be quantified.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Reproductive factors and breast cancer risk according to joint estrogen and progesterone receptor status: a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

              Introduction Although reproductive factors have been known for decades to be associated with breast cancer risk, it is unclear to what extent these associations differ by estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR) status. This report presents the first meta-analysis of results from epidemiological studies that have investigated parity, age at first birth, breastfeeding, and age at menarche in relation to ER+PR+ and ER-PR- cancer risk. Materials and methods We calculated summary relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed effects model. Results Each birth reduced the risk of ER+PR+ cancer by 11% (RR per birth = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.84–0.94), and women who were in the highest age at first birth category had, on average, 27% higher risk of ER+PR+ cancer compared with women who were in the youngest age at first birth category (RR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.07–1.50). Neither parity nor age at first birth was associated with the risk of ER-PR- cancer (RR per birth = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.94–1.05; RR of oldest versus youngest age at first birth category = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.85–1.20). Breastfeeding and late age at menarche decreased the risk of both receptor subtypes of breast cancer. The protective effect of late age at menarche was statistically significantly greater for ER+PR+ than ER-PR- cancer (RR = 0.72 for ER+PR+ cancer; RR = 0.84 for ER-PR- cancer, p for homogeneity = 0.006). Conclusion Our findings suggest that breastfeeding (and age at menarche) may act through different hormonal mechanisms than do parity and age at first birth.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central
                1471-2407
                2008
                26 September 2008
                : 8
                : 271
                Affiliations
                [1 ]North West Cancer Intelligence Service, Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Kinnaird Road, Withington, Manchester, M20 4QL, UK
                [2 ]Non-communicable Disease and Epidemiology Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WC1E 7HT, UK
                [3 ]Trent Cancer Registry, 5 Old Fulwood Road, Sheffield, S10 3TG, UK
                [4 ]Cancer Research UK, London, WC2A 3PX, UK
                [5 ]King's College London, Thames Cancer Registry, 1st Floor, Capital House, 42 Weston Street, London, SE1 3QD, UK
                Article
                1471-2407-8-271
                10.1186/1471-2407-8-271
                2577116
                18822122
                477fd902-c1ab-4b9c-8c1b-8609a8194b93
                Copyright © 2008 Shack et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 26 November 2007
                : 26 September 2008
                Categories
                Research Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article