Differences In Cancer Patient Survival Research Articles

Understanding the impact of socioeconomic differences in breast cancer survival in England and Wales: Avoidable deaths and potential gain in expectation of life

BackgroundSocioeconomic differences in cancer patient survival are known to exist for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Standard metrics tend not to place great emphasis on evaluating the actual impact of these differences. MethodsWe used two alternative, but related, methods of reporting the impact of socioeconomic differences for breast cancer patients in England and Wales. We calculated the average gain in life years for each patient should socioeconomic differences in relative survival be removed and show how this is related to the number of all-cause deaths that could be postponed by removing socioeconomic differences in cancer patient survival. ResultsOur results indicate that deprivation differences for women with breast cancer exist and result in women from more deprived areas losing a larger proportion of their life due to a diagnosis of cancer. We also estimate that on average 1.1 years could be gained for a 60 year old breast cancer patient in the most deprived group by improving their relative survival to match the least deprived group. However, our results also show that deprivation differences in general survival have a large impact on life expectancy; showing that over two-thirds of the gap in differential life expectancy is explained by differences in other-cause survival. ConclusionSocioeconomic differences in relative survival have an impact on life expectancy for patients and result in higher early mortality for more deprived patients. However, differences in general survival across socioeconomic groups explain a larger proportion of the deprivation gap in life expectancy for breast cancer patients.

The impact of comorbidity on costs and effects of second-line treatment among elderly metastatic colon cancer patients.

536 Background: The Charleston Co-morbidity Index (CCI) was developed as in hospital mortality indicatory and subsequently has been used to both predict and adjust survival differences in cancer patients. We therefore sought to examine how the incremental cost effectiveness of treating elderly metastatic colon cancer (mCC) patients with second-line treatment (Tx2) will vary based upon their baseline CCI. Methods: We identified 2,897 elderly (age 66+) mCC patients who received NCCN recommended first-line treatment (Tx1) between 2003 and 2009 in the SEER-Medicare dataset. Approximately 6% and 1% of patients with missing CCI and outlier costs, respectively, were excluded. We categorized patients by their CCI for 12 months prior to diagnosis into three categories: low (CCI = 0), medium (CCI = 1) and high (CCI = 2+). We calculated 5-years cost-effectiveness of Tx2. Patients enrolled in HMOs, lost part A and/or B, and died of causes other than colon cancer are censored. Costs are inflation adjusted to January 2009 dollars using U.S. Medical Price Index (MPI). We adjusted for censoring using Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) method and selection bias on observables using Propensity Score Bin Bootstrapping method. Results: Among patients who received Tx1, 56% (n = 1,285) proceeded to receive Tx2. Of those who received Tx2, 67% (n = 864), 23% (n = 289), and 10% (n = 132) have low, medium and high comorbidities, respectively. Compared to those who do not received Tx2, patients who received Tx2 with low, medium, and high baseline comorbidities live 18 (se = 4), 253 (se = 4), and 183 (se = 3) days longer and incur added costs of $66,693 (se = $675), $80,217 (se = $723), and $49,610 (se = $1,136), respectively. The median Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) of Tx2 for patients with low, medium, and high comorbidity are $80,049, $114,693, and $151,627, respectively. Conclusions: Survival benefits from receiving Tx2 vary from an average of 18 days to 253 days and added costs from $49,610 to $80,217 depending on baseline comorbidity levels. The median ICERs associated with Tx2 increase as baseline comorbidity level of patients increase.

How much of the deprivation gap in cancer survival can be explained by variation in stage at diagnosis: An example from breast cancer in the East of England

Socioeconomic differences in cancer patient survival exist in many countries and across cancer sites. In our article, we estimated the number of deaths in women with breast cancer that could be avoided within 5 years from diagnosis if it were possible to eliminate socioeconomic differences in stage at diagnosis. We analysed data on East of England women with breast cancer (2006-2010). We estimated survival for different stage-age-deprivation strata using both the observed and a hypothetical stage distribution (assuming all women acquired the stage distribution of the most affluent women). Data were analysed on 20,738 women with complete stage information (92%). Affluent women were less likely to be diagnosed in advanced stage. Relative survival decreased with increasing level of deprivation. Eliminating differences in stage at diagnosis could be expected to nearly eliminate differences in relative survival for women in deprivation groups 3 and 4, but would only approximately halve the difference in relative survival for women in the most deprived group (5). This means, for a typical cohort of women diagnosed in a calendar year with breast cancer, eliminating deprivation differences in stage at diagnosis would prevent ∼40 deaths in the East of England from occurring within 5 years from diagnosis. Using appropriate weighting we estimated the respective number of avoidable deaths for the whole of England to be ∼450. The findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing inequalities in stage at diagnosis between women with breast cancer are important to reduce inequalities in breast cancer survival.

Equity in cancer patient survival in Finland

To study temporal, regional and education-related differences in cancer patient survival in Finland by site and sex. Population-based relative and cause-specific cancer survival analysis using the complete and period methods....

Survival of Cancer Patients in Finland 1955-1994

The study of survival of cancer patients is essential for monitoring the effectiveness of cancer control. The previous monograph describing cancer patient survival in Finland was published by the Finnish Cancer Registry in 1981 and covered patients diagnosed in 1953-1974. This new supplement assesses cancer patient survival up to the year 1995. The study includes over 560000 tumours registered at the Finnish Cancer Registry with a date of diagnosis between 1955 and 1994. Patients were followed up to the end of 1995. Trends in relative survival rates are studied over four 10-year diagnostic periods from 1955 to 1994. In addition, detailed results are presented for patients diagnosed during 1985-1994, including relative survival rates tabulated by stage, sex, and age. Additional sections describe differences in cancer patient survival according to social class and region of residence and a comparison of cancer patient survival in Finland to other European countries. Patient survival improved over time for almost all anatomical sites. The main exception is in cancer of the cervix uteri, where patient survival has decreased slightly from 1965-1974 to 1985-1994 due to the selective prevention of less aggressive tumours through cytologic screening. Very few differences in patient survival are observed between males and females. A substantial improvement in survival can be seen for childhood cancers. The increasing survival rates reflect improvements that have taken place in various areas of cancer control, from health education and early diagnosis to treatment and aftercare. This study provides valuable reference information for both clinicians and health administrators, as well as a baseline for more detailed studies of patient survival for individual anatomical sites.

Measuring social class differences in cancer patient survival: is it necessary to control for social class differences in general population mortality? A Finnish population-based study.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Estimation of cancer patient survival by social class has been performed using observed, corrected (cause specific), and relative (with expected survival based on the national population) survival rates....

Socioeconomic status and survival of gastric cancer patients.

Survival differences in cancer patients according to socioeconomic status (SES) have been reported for several organs, but the relationship with gastric cancer prognosis has not been conclusively defined. The present study analysed the survival of 122 incident, histologically confirmed gastric cancer patients diagnosed between 1985 and 1987 in Genoa, Italy and enrolled in a multicentric case-control study on gastric cancer occurrence and dietary habits. Adjusting for age at diagnosis, tumour stage, histopathological grading and surgery (i.e. curative gastric resection), Cox's proportional hazards regression model showed statistically significant hazard ratio (HR) (relative risk) estimates below unity for education (> 5 versus < or = 5 years of schooling, HR = 0.40, P = 0.003) and occupation (higher versus lower income job, HR = 0.59, P = 0.030). Also, the same final regression model revealed a positive prognostic effect for origin (Southern Italy migrants versus Genoa natives) (HR = 0.56, P = 0.039) and female gender (HR = 0.58, P = 0.020). High SES, origin from lower risk area for gastric cancer occurrence and female gender are positive prognostic categories for gastric cancer patients.

Interpreting survival differences and trends.

Since 1990 a concerted action between European population-based cancer registries (the EUROCARE project) has been carried out with the aims of establishing whether there are differences in cancer patient survival in Europe, and the reasons for such differences. Survival differences actually exist for cancer sites for which the stage of disease at diagnosis is the major prognostic factor (such as breast, stomach and colon cancer). However, for most cancer sites, survival increases over time and the survival rates of different countries tend to converge towards higher values. Interpreting survival differences and trends is not an easy task. Longer survival may be achieved by postponing death through better treatment or by anticipating diagnosis. However, an earlier diagnosis may or may not make a treatment more effective in postponing death. The computation of stage-specific or stage-adjusted survival is not sufficient for interpretation of survival differences, because staging procedures change over time and may vary in different hospitals and countries. In addition to an early diagnosis and more effective treatment, a number of factors may bias survival estimates. They may be classified into factors that can be controlled in the analysis (at least partially), such as mortality from other causes, demographic factors, epoch of diagnosis, different statistical methodology, and factors depending on the validity of cancer registry data, such as definition of the illness, exhaustiveness and quality of registration, completeness of follow-up, definition of the data of diagnosis, and definition of disease stage including the diagnostic procedure used to establish stage. To help disentangle the effects of early diagnosis and better treatment, several statistical approaches are being developed: multivariate analysis on relative survival data, new modeling analysis to separately estimate the proportion of cured patients and the length of survival for those patients destined to die, and the standardized collection of information on stage at diagnosis and staging procedures.

Cancer patient survival by socioeconomic status in seven countries: a review for six common cancer sites [corrected

To study the size and consistency of socioeconomic differences in cancer patient survival as reported in published studies. A systematic review was conducted. Several criteria were developed to select the study material, which resulted in 14 reports on socioeconomic differences in survival for cancers of the colon, rectum, lung, prostate, breast, and cervix. These present results on patients from the United States, Japan, Australia, United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, and Germany. The results are summarised in a relative risk of dying or survival ratio for the lowest socioeconomic status group compared with the highest. For cancers of the colon, rectum, breast, and cervix, patients from higher socioeconomic status groups had a better survival. For lung cancer and cancer of the prostate, results were unclear. Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival are generally small and their contribution to socioeconomic differences in cancer mortality is probably small too. These findings have implications for the type of health policy measures which should be taken to reduce socioeconomic differences in cancer mortality.

Estrogen Receptor Status and Dietary Intakes in Breast Cancer Patients

We used data from a study of racial differences in cancer patient survival to examine the association between estrogen receptor status and the intake of nutrients and food groups among 689 black and white women, ages 20-79, with breast cancer newly diagnosed in 1985 and 1986. We reviewed medical records and collected interview data, including a 34-item food frequency questionnaire. Consistent with published reports, we found positive estrogen receptor status to be positively associated with age and inversely associated with parity and oral contraceptive use. Whites were more likely than blacks to have estrogen receptor-positive tumors. We examined eight nutrients and six food groups in multivariate analyses for association with estrogen receptor status. After adjusting for age, race, usual body mass index, and parity, a high percentage of calories from fat was associated with estrogen receptor-positive cancer, and a high percentage of calories from carbohydrates was associated with estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer. These findings indicate that women with breast cancer who are on diets with a high percentage of calories from fat may be more likely to develop estrogen receptor-positive cancers.