Relationship between socioeconomic status and prostate cancer (incidence, aggressiveness, treatment with curative intent, and mortality): a spatial analysis using population-based cancer registry data.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality associated with prostate cancer in a given geographic area might be related to the level of socioeconomic deprivation. The Somme area (a region of northern France) is considered economically disadvantaged, with major territorial disparities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the socioeconomic level on prostate cancer, using data from a population-based cancer registry. METHODS: The source of data on cases of prostate cancer between 2006 and 2010 was the Somme cancer registry (Amiens, France). Socioeconomic status was measured according to the European Deprivation Index (EDI), which was used to classify each geographical "IRIS" unit (the smallest sub-municipal geographical entity for which French census data are available) according to its level of social deprivation. For spatial analysis, we considered a hierarchical generalized linear model. RESULTS: In the spatial analysis, prostate cancer incidence was higher in the less disadvantaged areas and treatment frequency with curative intent was lower in the most disadvantaged areas. Cancer aggressiveness and mortality were higher in the most disadvantaged areas: relative risk (RR) = 1.36; 95% CI: [1.09; 1.73] and RR=3.09 [1.70; 5.59], respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results evidenced a significant association between socioeconomic deprivation and prostate cancer, with worse outcomes among men with the lowest socioeconomic status.

Predictive factors for the participation of general practitioners in lung cancer screening by low-dose CT scan in the Somme department in northern France.

INTRODUCTION: A study on lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (DEP KP80) was conducted in the Somme department in northern France between May 2016 and December 2018. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of family physicians in that department to identify potential predictive factors for their participation in this pilot study. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was sent to the 545 general practitioners (GPs) of the Somme department. This survey rendered it possible to identify the investigators who were active in the DEP KP80 study. The questionnaire's content was focused on the socio-demographic conditions of GPs, their professional practices, and their medical practice situations. RESULTS: The response rate was 38% (206 completed questionnaires). Active investigators in DEP KP80 accounted for 55% (n=113) of the GPs surveyed, and non-investigators for 45% (n=93). Age, gender, or medical practice situation were not related to the active GPs' participation in DEP KP80. A multivariate analysis revealed that two factors were correlated with active participation in organized screening: (1) prescription of nicotine replacement therapy; (2) smoking history of the GP. CONCLUSIONS: Securing the active involvement of family physicians and of the French regional cancer screening coordination centers seems essential for the future organization of lung cancer screening on a regional or national level. Our results demonstrate that incorporating smoking cessation support structures into the program would maximize the mechanism's potential.