Social inequalities and equities are very closely related, but with important differences.
In cancer epidemiology, social inequalities refer to differences in socioeconomic
position (SEP) related to statistical differences in incidence, mortality, and survival
rates between populations. Social inequities may be the cause of social inequalities.
Social inequities are systemic, unnecessary, unjust, and avoidable barriers that prevent
segments of the population from achieving optimal health (1). Geographical, economic,
societal, and cultural aspects of inequity interact to construct circumstances in
which these subgroups are, to varying degrees, excluded or included. As populations
navigate the cancer care continuum of cancer prevention, detection/diagnosis, and
management/treatment (2), ingrained social inequities lead to cancer incidence, mortality,
and/or survival disparities (3–5). Social inequities have been recognized in numerous
studies as a strong predictor of morbidity and premature mortality worldwide (6) and
contribute to cancer inequalities within countries and between countries (7). Although
reductions in cancer burden are achievable by reducing social and economic inequities,
socioeconomic factors and their role in cancer causation and outcomes are often not
targeted in public health strategies.
The field of “social epidemiology” is distinguished by its focus on the conditions
of the environment in which population subgroups grow, work, and live, encompassing
the cumulative impact of these factors—the social determinants—, as a whole, on health,
and disease outcomes (7, 8). The study of social inequities in cancer prevention strategies
is a field of active research, e.g., with a recent publication identifying low social
class based on occupational title as having a positive relationship with cancer mortality
(4) as well as the recent incorporation of a socio-demographic index (SDI) to annual
Global Burden of Disease reporting to stratify disease burden (9–11).
It must be acknowledged that targeting social inequities to improve public health
requires attention to concepts and methods conducive to illuminating links between
our physiology and social, political, and economic systems (12). Several studies in
this current topical issue focus on analyses of cancer incidence, mortality, and survival
by measures of socioeconomic status using Baysian models, area-based socioeconomic
indices (Carstairs, Theil T), human development index (HDI), and a childhood/adolescent
SEP based on parents' ownership of a car. The goal of this research topic is to draw
attention to several aspects of social inequities, including identifying unequal distributions
of cancer in social groups, health care system research, specific risks among less-studied
ethnic groups including life course models, and cancer survival inequities.
Unequal Distribution of Cancer in Social Groups
Kamath et al. provide an in-depth account of social disparities in liver cancer frequency,
risk factors as well as preventive services in New York City, known for its mixed
ethnic and social composition. Their study is an excellent example of using multiple
existing data sources in order to shed light on cancer related-disparities at neighborhood
level, with concomitant illustration using geographical mapping.
Germany has a large immigrant population, established since the 1960s and recently
expanded in the wake of large refugee movements. The “Aussiedler” (resettlers) are
a unique population consisting of ethnic Germans formerly residing in the ex-USSR.
Kaucher et al. report on two large administrative data-based-cohorts and show that
initially elevated frequencies of stomach and lung cancer (among men) converge to
the risk among the majority population, whereas mortality remains largely unchanged.
Analyses of colorectal, prostate, and female breast cancer incidence rates reveal
patterns favoring the migrant population. Unfortunately, there are no data on relevant
life-style and other risk factors in this study and ethnicity was used as a proxy
for SEP.
Using an area-based measure of social deprivation, Hoebel et al. study the socially
unequal distribution of cancer risk in Germany. They largely confirm international
results, also in terms of reverse gradients for malignant melanoma, breast and thyroid
cancer. Their analysis provides insights into both absolute and relative inequalities
and indicate that overall, there are larger social inequalities in cancer among men
compared to women. However, site-specific analyses differentiate this picture to some
extent.
Cervical cancer remains at the top of important cancers for many less developed countries.
Santamaría-Ulloa and Valverde-Manzanares provide an account of existing social differences
in cervical cancer incidence in Costa Rica. The economic dimension of the index used
is a compound measure of residential electricity consumption and residential access
to internet and the Theil T index used to quantify inequality on a district level.
Higher incidence rates are found to be related to a lower uptake of cervical cancer
screening, and rates differ substantially across socioeconomic regions within Costa
Rica.
On the global level, Fidler and Bray use the HDI as composite metric to study global
cancer frequencies. They outline HDI stratification as an important approach providing
guidance for the development and implementation of cancer control plans worldwide.
A notable characteristic of the HDI is the fact that it combines social (education),
health (life expectancy), and economic (gross national income) data at country level.
Further discussion is warranted regarding how the HDI compares to the SDI used in
the Global Burden of Disease studies.
Life Course, Genetic-Ethnic Issues
Little is known about prostate cancer risk factors, although blacks have a much higher
rate than whites. Madathil et al. investigate the relationship between lifelong SEP
and prostate cancer in a French-speaking Canadian population using a Bayesian life
course exposure model. Measures of SEP during childhood/adolescence include parents'
ownership of a car and father's longest occupation, while the subject's first and
longest occupations indicate early- and late-adulthood SEP. Lower SEP over the life
course is associated with higher PCa incidence, with evidence for sensitive time periods.
Brovkina et al. focus on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOS) among
Tatars, one of the largest ethnic minority groups in Russia. It was previously reported
that the BRCA mutation, while frequent for the Slavic population, has not been found
in Tatar women with hereditary breast cancer. This study demonstrates a predisposition
for the CDK12c.1047-2A>G nucleotide variant in HBOCS in patients of Tatar ethnicity
and identifies CDK12 as a novel gene involved in HBOCS susceptibility.
Health Care Systems and Cancer Research
The study by Alavi et al. is the first to focus on public versus private rehabilitation
centers in Iran. Private rehabilitation centers were rated higher in communication,
basic amenities and autonomy compared to public centers. Using the Blinder-Oaxaca
decomposition model, perceived social class explain 76% of the inequality in autonomy
in choosing between public and private rehabilitation center.
With a broad perspective on potentials for cancer research, the review by Drake et
al. outlines the methods by which funding schemes, scientists, genome consortia, and
policy makers can play a role to ensure cancer research is generalizable and beneficial
to patients in both high- and low-income countries. This includes higher representation
of low-to-middle income countries in large molecular and genomic studies, focus on
cost-effective approaches to precision medicine, and an overall pooling of data and
resources to foster the mechanistic understanding of cancer on a global level.
Survival and Social Factors
Survival rates have substantially improved over the last decades for most cancer sites.
Nonetheless, not all patients benefit from these advances. It has been consistently
observed that socioeconomically disadvantaged cancer patients have worse survival
than patients from socioeconomically advantaged groups and, in some countries, this
socioeconomic gap has widened over time.
Ingarfield et al. assess the change in social inequality in the survival of patients
with head and neck cancer between short-, mid-, and long-term survival in Scotland.
Findings show a clear gradients in overall, disease-specific and net survival across
socioeconomic groups (measured by area-based Carstairs 2001 index). Further analyses
with full adjustment reveal that the survival inequalities can be largely explained
by differences in multiple factors, including patient, tumor, and treatment.
Finke et al. conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizing current knowledge
on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival with a particular focus on differences
by measurements of socioeconomic status used (individual-level vs. ecological grouping).
Findings from the meta-analyses indicate a poorer prognosis among lower income patients.
While no evidence for associations between individual education or occupation and
lung cancer survival are observed, studies using an area-based socioeconomic measure
show lower survival for lower socioeconomic groups. Of note, only eight of the 94
reviewed individual studies account for smoking status in their analysis.
Evidence is accumulating that for childhood cancer, socioeconomic and social factors
also impact survival. Mogensen et al. review the most recent publications on social
and socioeconomic factors and childhood cancer survival in high-income countries and
find the evidence to be heterogeneous. Some studies observe no survival differences
between children by socioeconomic background, while several studies indicated a social
gradient with higher mortality among children from families of lower SES. Mogensen
et al. note that knowledge on underlying mechanisms for social inequalities in survival
is lacking.
Social inequities affect all aspects of cancer, from research to health care systems,
from disparities in incidence to treatment outcome, and life after cancer. It is also
a topic that has recently become high priority with the increasing burden of cancer
worldwide. As a result of improving survival rates (13), the number of cancer survivors
is continuously increasing. Access to health information and globalization are also
introducing a wider range of social groups to screening, diagnostic, and treatment
services as well as exposing disparities in access to health services. The public
health relevance of social inequities is substantially increasing and will continue
to be an important consideration to explain observed differences in cancer incidence,
mortality, and survivorship—even in the near future.
While the studies presented in this twelve-article collection cannot comprehensively
cover a topic of expanding breadth and depth, the new research questions raised in
the individual articles highlight the knowledge gaps, socioeconomic metrics, and analytical
techniques on the subject of social inequities. In doing so, this collection contributes
to identifying opportunities in reducing social inequality gaps and, therefore, overall
cancer burden, by providing an evidence-based foundation to build on public health
research aimed at reducing the social inequity in cancer.
Author Contributions
DH conceived the draft and wrote the manuscript. FE and HZ contributed to the manuscript
text and editing. HZ supervised the manuscript writing process. All authors provided
critical feedback and helped shape the direction of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.