Diagnostic accuracy of HPV16 early antigen serology for HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer is independent of age and sex.

A growing proportion of head and neck cancer (HNC), especially oropharyngeal cancer (OPC), is caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). There are several markers for HPV-driven HNC, one being HPV early antigen serology. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of HPV serology and its performance across patient characteristics. Data from the VOYAGER consortium was used, which comprises five studies on HNC from North America and Europe. Diagnostic accuracy, that is, sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa and correctly classified proportions of HPV16 E6 serology, was assessed for OPC and other HNC using p16INK4a immunohistochemistry (p16), HPV in situ hybridization (ISH) and HPV PCR as reference methods. Stratified analyses were performed for variables including age, sex, smoking and alcohol use, to test the robustness of diagnostic accuracy. A risk-factor analysis based on serology was conducted, comparing HPV-driven to non-HPV-driven OPC. Overall, HPV serology had a sensitivity of 86.8% (95% CI 85.1-88.3) and specificity of 91.2% (95% CI 88.6-93.4) for HPV-driven OPC using p16 as a reference method. In stratified analyses, diagnostic accuracy remained consistent across sex and different age groups. Sensitivity was lower for heavy smokers (77.7%), OPC without lymph node involvement (74.4%) and the ARCAGE study (66.7%), while specificity decreased for cases with <10 pack-years (72.1%). The risk-factor model included study, year of diagnosis, age, sex, BMI, alcohol use, pack-years, TNM-T and TNM-N stage. HPV serology is a robust biomarker for HPV-driven OPC, and its diagnostic accuracy is independent of age and sex. Future research is suggested on the influence of smoking on HPV antibody levels.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oral Cavity, Oropharynx, and Larynx: A Scoping Review of Treatment Guidelines Worldwide.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatments have been based on single or multimodal therapies with surgery, radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy, and immunotherapy. However, treatment recommendations among countries may differ due to technological/human resources and usual local practices. This scoping review aims to identify, compare, and map the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity, oropharynx, and larynx worldwide. A search strategy on global CPGs for HNC was performed by using five electronic databases and grey literature. CPGs were selected for inclusion using EndNote-20 and Rayyan online software. No language or publication date restrictions were applied. The results were analyzed descriptively considering the most updated CPG version. In total, 25 CPGs covering the head and neck region (10), the larynx (7), the oral cavity (5), and the oropharynx (3), were found in 13 geographical regions, and 19 were developed by medical societies from 1996 to 2023. Surgery and RT remain the main modalities for early-stage HNC, with surgery preferred in low-resource countries, and RT in selected cases, especially in the larynx/oropharynx aiming to achieve a cure with organ preservation. Human papillomavirus infection for oropharyngeal SCC is not tested in some Asian countries and there is still no consensus to treat p16-positive cases differently from p16-negative. Recommendations for larynx preservation vary according to facilities in each country, however, individualized choice is emphasized. Inequality across countries/continents is evident, with a similar pattern of recommendations among developed as well as developing ones. No CPGs were found in Latin America as well as Oceania countries, where the incidence of HNC is high and limitations of access to treatment may be encountered.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is a common treatment option in oral cavity cancer (and less frequently in oropharyngeal cancer) to remove the primary tumour and sometimes neck lymph nodes. People with early-stage disease may undergo surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy/biotherapy, or a combination of these. Timing and extent of surgery varies. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities, for primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Our primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and recurrence; and our secondary outcomes were adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported survival data as hazard ratios (HRs). For overall survival, we reported the HR of mortality, and for disease-free survival, we reported the combined HR of new disease, progression, and mortality; therefore, HRs below 1 indicated improvement in these outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four new trials, bringing the total number of included trials to 15 (2820 participants randomised, 2583 participants analysed). For objective outcomes, we assessed four trials at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and eight at unclear risk. The trials evaluated nine comparisons; none compared different surgical approaches for excision of the primary tumour. Five trials evaluated elective neck dissection (ND) versus therapeutic (delayed) ND in people with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes. Elective ND compared with therapeutic ND probably improves overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 883 participants; moderate certainty) and disease-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; I2 = 12%; 5 trials, 954 participants; moderate certainty), and probably reduces locoregional recurrence (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 458 participants; moderate certainty) and recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 633 participants; moderate certainty). Elective ND is probably associated with more adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 746 participants; moderate certainty). Two trials evaluated elective radical ND versus elective selective ND in people with oral cavity cancer, but we were unable to pool the data as the trials used different surgical procedures. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival (pooled measure not estimable; very low certainty). We are unsure if there is a difference in effect on disease-free survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; 1 trial, 104 participants; very low certainty) or recurrence (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; 1 trial, 143 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference between the interventions in terms of adverse events (1 trial, 148 participants; low certainty). Two trials evaluated superselective ND versus selective ND, but we were unable to use the data. One trial evaluated supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND in 332 participants. We were unable to use any of the primary outcome data. The evidence on adverse events was very uncertain, with more complications, pain, and poorer shoulder function in the modified radical ND group. One trial evaluated sentinel node biopsy versus elective ND in 279 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; low certainty), disease-free survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; low certainty), or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; low certainty). The trial provided no usable data for recurrence, and reported no adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy) in 564 participants. There is probably no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; moderate certainty) or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; moderate certainty). One trial evaluated surgery plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone and provided very low-certainty evidence of better overall survival in the surgery plus radiotherapy group (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59; 35 participants). The data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and had multiple protocol violations. In terms of adverse events, subcutaneous fibrosis was more frequent in the surgery plus radiotherapy group, but there were no differences in other adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated surgery versus radiotherapy alone for oropharyngeal cancer in 68 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions for overall survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.46; low certainty) or disease-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.22; low certainty). For adverse events, there were too many outcomes to draw reliable conclusions. One trial evaluated surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy versus chemotherapy. We were unable to use the data for any of the outcomes reported (very low certainty). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-certainty evidence based on five trials that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary oral cavity tumour is superior to therapeutic neck dissection, with increased survival and disease-free survival, and reduced locoregional recurrence. There was moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of no difference between positron emission tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy versus planned neck dissection in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence. The evidence for each of the other seven comparisons came from only one or two studies and was assessed as low or very low-certainty.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not changed stage at presentation nor treatment patterns of head and neck cancer: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown measures on HNC, by comparing the stage at presentation and treatment of HNC before and after the most severe COVID-19 restrictions. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A regional cancer network serving a patient population of 2.4 million. PARTICIPANTS: Newly diagnosed patients with HNC between June and October 2019 (pre-pandemic) and June and October 2021 (post-pandemic). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom duration before diagnosis, stage at diagnosis, patient performance status (PS) and intent of treatment delivered (palliative vs. curative). RESULTS: Five hundred forty-five patients were evaluated-250 in the 2019 and 295 in the 2021 cohort. There were no significant differences in symptom duration between the cohorts (p = .359) or patient PS (p = .821). There were no increased odds of presenting with a late (Stage III or IV) AJCC cancer stage in 2021 compared with 2019 (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-1.08); nor increased odds of receiving palliative rather than curative treatment in 2021 compared with 2019 (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.45-1.03). CONCLUSION: The predicted stage shift to more advanced disease at the time of diagnosis of HNC due to the COVID-19 pandemic has not been realised in the longer term. In keeping with this, there was no difference in symptom duration, patient PS, or treatment patterns between the 2019 and 2021 cohorts.

A risk prediction model for head and neck cancers incorporating lifestyle factors, HPV serology and genetic markers.

Head and neck cancer is often diagnosed late and prognosis for most head and neck cancer patients remains poor. To aid early detection, we developed a risk prediction model based on demographic and lifestyle risk factors, human papillomavirus (HPV) serological markers and genetic markers. A total of 10 126 head and neck cancer cases and 5254 controls from five North American and European studies were included. HPV serostatus was determined by antibodies for HPV16 early oncoproteins (E6, E7) and regulatory early proteins (E1, E2, E4). The data were split into a training set (70%) for model development and a hold-out testing set (30%) for model performance evaluation, including discriminative ability and calibration. The risk models including demographic, lifestyle risk factors and polygenic risk score showed a reasonable predictive accuracy for head and neck cancer overall. A risk model that also included HPV serology showed substantially improved predictive accuracy for oropharyngeal cancer (AUC = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.92-0.95 in men and AUC = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.88-0.95 in women). The 5-year absolute risk estimates showed distinct trajectories by risk factor profiles. Based on the UK Biobank cohort, the risks of developing oropharyngeal cancer among 60 years old and HPV16 seropositive in the next 5 years ranged from 5.8% to 14.9% with an average of 8.1% for men, 1.3% to 4.4% with an average of 2.2% for women. Absolute risk was generally higher among individuals with heavy smoking, heavy drinking, HPV seropositivity and those with higher polygenic risk score. These risk models may be helpful for identifying people at high risk of developing head and neck cancer.

Risk prediction models for head and neck cancer: A rapid review.

Background: Cancer risk assessment models are used to support prevention and early detection. However, few models have been developed for head and neck cancer (HNC). Methods: A rapid review of Embase and MEDLINE identified n = 3045 articles. Following dual screening, n = 14 studies were included. Quality appraisal using the PROBAST (risk of bias) instrument was conducted, and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify the best performing models in terms of risk factors and designs. Results: Six of the 14 models were assessed as "high" quality. Of these, three had high predictive performance achieving area under curve values over 0.8 (0.87-0.89). The common features of these models were their inclusion of predictors carefully tailored to the target population/anatomical subsite and development with external validation. Conclusions: Some existing models do possess the potential to identify and stratify those at risk of HNC but there is scope for improvement.

Reviewing the epidemiology of head and neck cancer: definitions, trends and risk factors.

Introduction Head and neck cancer appears to be increasing in incidence, with potential changes in aetiology proposed. This paper aims to provide a narrative overview of the epidemiological literature to describe the disease burden and trends in terms of incidence and mortality both in the UK and globally and to review the evidence on current risk factors.Methods A search was performed on multiple databases (PubMed and Epistemonikos), applying filters to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses which investigated head and neck cancer incidence, mortality and risk factors. International and UK cancer registries and sources were searched for incidence and mortality data.Results Multiple definitions of head and neck cancer are employed in epidemiology. Globally, incidence rates have increased in recent decades, largely driven by oropharyngeal cancer. Mortality rates over the last decade have also started to rise, reflecting the disease incidence and static survival rates. Major risk factors include tobacco smoking alone and in combination with alcohol consumption, betel chewing (particularly in Southeast Asian populations) and the human papillomavirus in oropharyngeal cancer.Conclusions These epidemiological data can inform clinical and preventive service planning for head and neck cancer.

Head and neck cancer in the UK: what was the stage before COVID-19? UK cancer registries analysis (2011-2018).

Introduction People who present with more advanced stage head and neck cancer (HNC) are associated with poorer outcomes and survival. The burden and trends of advanced stage HNC are not fully known at the population level. The UK national cancer registries routinely collect data on HNC diagnoses.Aims To describe trends in stage of diagnosis of HNCs across the UK before the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods Aggregated HNC incidence data were requested from the national cancer registries of the four UK countries for the ten most recent years of available data by subsite and American Joint Commission on Cancer stage at diagnosis classification. Additionally, data for Scotland were available by age group, sex and area-based socioeconomic deprivation category.Results Across the UK, rates of advanced stage HNC had increased, with 59% of patients having advanced disease at diagnosis from 2016-2018. England had a lower proportion of advanced disease (58%) than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland (65-69%) where stage data were available. The completeness of stage data had improved over recent years (87% by 2018).Conclusion Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, diagnoses of HNC at an advanced stage comprised the majority of HNCs in the UK, representing the major challenge for the cancer healthcare system.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis in the Piedmont Region, Italy: Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has likely affected the most vulnerable groups of patients and those requiring time-critical access to healthcare services, such as patients with cancer. The aim of this study was to use time trend data to assess the impact of COVID-19 on timely diagnosis and treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC) in the Italian Piedmont region. Methods: This study was based on two different data sources. First, regional hospital discharge register data were used to identify incident HNC in patients ≥18 years old during the period from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Interrupted time-series analysis was used to model the long-time trends in monthly incident HNC before COVID-19 while accounting for holiday-related seasonal fluctuations in the HNC admissions. Second, in a population of incident HNC patients eligible for recruitment in an ongoing clinical cohort study (HEADSpAcE) that started before the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared the distribution of early-stage and late-stage diagnoses between the pre-COVID-19 and the COVID-19 period. Results: There were 4,811 incident HNC admissions in the 5-year period before the COVID-19 outbreak and 832 admissions in 2020, of which 689 occurred after the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. An initial reduction of 28% in admissions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.84) was largely addressed by the end of 2020 (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89-1.03) when considering the whole population, although there were some heterogeneities. The gap between observed and expected admissions was particularly evident and had not completely recovered by the end of the year in older (≥75 years) patients (RR: 0.88, 0.76-1.01), patients with a Romano-Charlson comorbidity index below 2 (RR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-1.00), and primary surgically treated patients (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97). In the subgroup of patients eligible for the ongoing active recruitment, we observed no evidence of a shift toward a more advanced stage at diagnosis in the periods following the first pandemic wave. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected differentially the management of certain groups of incident HNC patients, with more pronounced impact on older patients, those treated primarily surgically, and those with less comorbidities. The missed and delayed diagnoses may translate into worser oncological outcomes in these patients.

Systematic overview of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines: assessment and prevention of behavioural risk factors associated with oral cancer to inform dental professionals in primary care dental practices.

Aims/objectives Tobacco and alcohol are recognised as the major modifiable risk factors for oral cancer, the incidence of which is rising globally and predicted to increase. This paper aimed to: 1) appraise and synthesise best practice evidence for assessing the major behavioural risk factors for oral cancer and delivering behaviour change interventions (for example, advice, counselling, signposting/referral to preventive services); and 2) assess appropriateness for implementation by dental professionals in primary care.Methods A systematic overview was undertaken of systematic reviews and international clinical guidelines. This involved: systematically searching and collating the international literature on assessing oral cancer risk and delivering preventive interventions within primary care; quality appraising and assessing the risk of bias using validated tools; synthesising the evidence for best practice; and assessing application of key findings to the dental setting.Results and conclusions There is clear evidence for the effectiveness of a 'brief', in-person, motivational intervention for sustained tobacco abstinence or reduced alcohol consumption, following risk factor assessment. Evidence for combined behavioural interventions is lacking. There is no firm conclusion with regards to optimal duration of brief interventions (range 5-20 minutes). For tobacco users, longer (10-20 minutes) and intensive (more than 20 minutes, with follow-up visits) interventions are more effective in increasing quit rates compared to no intervention; very brief (less than five minutes) interventions in a single session show comparable effectiveness to the longer/more intensive interventions. For alcohol users, 10-15-minute multi-contact interventions were most effective, compared to no intervention or very brief (less than five minutes) intervention or intensive intervention; brief interventions of five-minute duration were equally effective. There is limited direct evidence from the dental practice setting (one high-quality systematic review relating to tobacco prevention and none relating to alcohol). Thus, very brief, or brief advice of up to five minutes, should be trialled for tobacco and alcohol respectively in a dental practice setting, after risk assessment tailored to patient motivational status. Exploring delivery by the dental team is supported, as effectiveness was generally independent of primary care provider.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are the most common cancers arising in the head and neck. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients. This review updates one last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma results in improved overall survival, improved disease-free survival and/or improved locoregional control, when incorporated as either induction therapy given prior to locoregional treatment (i.e. radiotherapy or surgery), concurrent with radiotherapy or in the adjuvant (i.e. after locoregional treatment with radiotherapy or surgery) setting. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched 4 bibliographic databases up to 15 September 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and that evaluated the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this update, we assessed the new included trials for their risk of bias and at least two authors extracted data from them. Our primary outcome was overall survival (time to death from any cause). Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival (time to disease recurrence or death from any cause) and locoregional control (response to primary treatment). We contacted trial authors for additional information or clarification when necessary. MAIN RESULTS: We included 100 studies with 18,813 participants. None of the included trials were at low risk of bias.  For induction chemotherapy, we reported the results for contemporary regimens that will be of interest to clinicians and people being treated for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to clearly demonstrate a survival benefit from induction chemotherapy with platinum plus 5-fluorouracil prior to radiotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.04, P = 0.11; 7427 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), prior to surgery (HR for death 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.60, P = 0.77; 198 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or prior to concurrent chemoradiation (CRT) with cisplatin (HR for death 0.71, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.35, P = 0.30; 389 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). There is insufficient evidence to support the use of an induction chemotherapy regimen with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil plus docetaxel prior to CRT with cisplatin (HR for death 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44, P = 0.63; 760 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence).  There is insufficient evidence to support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy over observation only following surgery (HR for death 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.22, P = 0.67; 353 participants, 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Among studies that compared post-surgical adjuvant CRT, as compared to post-surgical RT, adjuvant CRT showed a survival benefit (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98, P = 0.03; 1097 participants, 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Primary treatment with CRT, as compared to radiotherapy alone,  was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR for death 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83, P < 0.00001; 2852 participants, 24 studies; moderate-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review demonstrate that chemotherapy in the curative-intent treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers only seems to be of benefit when used in specific circumstances together with locoregional treatment. The  evidence does not show a clear survival benefit from the use of induction chemotherapy prior to radiotherapy, surgery or CRT. Adjuvant CRT reduces the risk of death by 16%, as compared to radiotherapy alone. Concurrent chemoradiation as compared to radiation alone is associated with a greater than 20% improvement in overall survival; however, additional research is required to inform how the specific chemotherapy regimen may influence this benefit.

Germline determinants of humoral immune response to HPV-16 protect against oropharyngeal cancer.

Although several oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) susceptibility loci have been identified, most previous studies lacked detailed information on human papillomavirus (HPV) status. We conduct a genome-wide analysis by HPV16 serology status in 4,002 oral cancer cases (OPC and oral cavity cancer (OCC)) and 5,256 controls. We detect four susceptibility loci pointing to a distinct genetic predisposition by HPV status. Our most notable finding in the HLA region, that is now confirmed to be specific of HPV(+)OPC risk, reveal two independent loci with strong protective effects, one refining the previously reported HLA class II haplotype association. Antibody levels against HPV16 viral proteins strongly implicate the protective HLA variants as major determinants of humoral response against L1 capsid protein or E6 oncoprotein suggesting a natural immune response against HPV(+)OPC promoted by HLA variants. This indicates that therapeutic vaccines that target E6 and attenuate viral response after established HPV infections might protect against HPV(+)OPC.

Cancer mortality 1981-2016 and contribution of specific cancers to current socioeconomic inequalities in all cancer mortality: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: In many high-income countries cancer mortality rates have declined, however, socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality have widened over time with those in the most deprived areas bearing the greatest burden. Less is known about the contribution of specific cancers to inequalities in total cancer mortality. METHODS: Using high-quality routinely collected population and mortality records we examine long-term trends in cancer mortality rates in Scotland by age group, sex, and area deprivation. We use the decomposed slope and relative indices of inequality to identify the specific cancers that contribute most to absolute and relative inequalities, respectively, in total cancer mortality. RESULTS: Cancer mortality rates fell by 24 % for males and 10 % for females over the last 35 years; declining across all age groups except females aged 75+ where rates rose by 14 %. Lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer death. Mortality rates of lung cancer have more than halved for males since 1981, while rates among females have almost doubled over the same period. CONCLUSION: Current relative inequalities in total cancer mortality are dominated by inequalities in lung cancer mortality, but with contributions from other cancer sites including liver, and head and neck (males); and breast (females), stomach and cervical (younger females). An understanding of which cancer sites contribute most to inequalities in total cancer mortality is crucial for improving cancer health and care, and for reducing preventable cancer deaths.

Application of two job indices for general occupational demands in a pooled analysis of case-control studies on lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated general job demands as a risk factor for lung cancer as well as their role in the association between occupational prestige and lung cancer. METHODS: In 13 case-control studies on lung cancer, as part of the international SYNERGY project, we applied indices for physical (PHI) and psychosocial (PSI) job demands - each with four categories (high to low). We estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for lung cancer by unconditional logistic regression, separately for men and women and adjusted for study centre, age, smoking behavior, and former employment in occupations with potential exposure to carcinogens. Further, we investigated, whether higher risks among men with low occupational prestige (Treiman's Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale) were affected by adjustment for the job indices. RESULTS: In 30 355 men and 7371 women, we found increased risks (OR) for lung cancer with high relative to low job demands in both men [PHI 1.74 (95% CI 1.56-1.93), PSI 1.33 (95% CI 1.17-1.51)] and women [PHI 1.62 (95% CI 1.24-2.11), PSI 1.31 (95% CI 1.09-1.56)]. OR for lung cancer among men with low occupational prestige were slightly reduced when adjusting for PHI [low versus high prestige OR from 1.44 (95% CI 1.32-1.58) to 1.30 (95% CI 1.17-1.45)], but not PSI. CONCLUSIONS: Higher physical job demands were associated with increased risks of lung cancer, while associations for higher psychosocial demands were less strong. In contrast to physical demands, psychosocial demands did not contribute to clarify the association of occupational prestige and lung cancer.

Occupational socioeconomic risk associations for head and neck cancer in Europe and South America: individual participant data analysis of pooled case-control studies within the INHANCE Consortium.

BACKGROUND: The association between socioeconomic disadvantage (low education and/or income) and head and neck cancer is well established, with smoking and alcohol consumption explaining up to three-quarters of the risk. We aimed to investigate the nature of and explanations for head and neck cancer risk associated with occupational socioeconomic prestige (a perceptual measure of psychosocial status), occupational socioeconomic position and manual-work experience, and to assess the potential explanatory role of occupational exposures. METHODS: Pooled analysis included 5818 patients with head and neck cancer (and 7326 control participants) from five studies in Europe and South America. Lifetime job histories were coded to: (1) occupational social prestige-Treiman's Standard International Occupational Prestige Scale (SIOPS); (2) occupational socioeconomic position-International Socio-Economic Index (ISEI); and (3) manual/non-manual jobs. RESULTS: For the longest held job, adjusting for smoking, alcohol and nature of occupation, increased head and neck cancer risk estimates were observed for low SIOPS OR=1.88 (95% CI: 1.64 to 2.17), low ISEI OR=1.74 (95% CI: 1.51 to 1.99) and manual occupations OR=1.49 (95% CI: 1.35 to 1.64). Following mutual adjustment by socioeconomic exposures, risk associated with low SIOPS remained OR=1.59 (95% CI: 1.30 to 1.94). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that low occupational socioeconomic prestige, position and manual work are associated with head and neck cancer, and such risks are only partly explained by smoking, alcohol and occupational exposures. Perceptual occupational psychosocial status (SIOPS) appears to be the strongest socioeconomic factor, relative to socioeconomic position and manual/non-manual work.

Message framing to inform cancer prevention pricing interventions in the UK and USA: a factorial experiment, 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To advance understanding of how message framing can be used to maximise public support across different pricing policies for alcohol, tobacco and sugary drinks/foods that prevent consumption of cancer-causing products. DESIGN: We designed a 3×4×3 randomised factorial experiment to test responses to messages with three pricing policies, four message frames and three products. SETTING: Online survey panel (Qualtrics) in 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N=1850) from the UK and USA. INTERVENTIONS: Participants randomly viewed one of 36 separate messages that varied by pricing policy (increasing taxes, getting rid of price discounts, getting rid of low-cost products), four frames and product (alcohol, tobacco, sugary drinks/foods). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the relationship between the message characteristics and four dependent variables. Three were related to policy support: (1) increasing taxes on the product mentioned in the message, (2) getting rid of price discounts and special offers on the product mentioned in the message and (3) getting rid of low-cost versions of the product mentioned in the message. One was related to reactance, a psychological response to having one's freedom limited. RESULTS: We found no effect for pricing policy in the message. Frames regarding children and reducing cancer risk moderated some outcomes, showing promise for real-world use. We found differences in support by product and reactance with greatest support and least reactance for tobacco policies, less support and more reactance for alcohol policies, and the least support and most reactance for sugary drinks/foods policies. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer prevention efforts using policy interventions can be informed by the message framing literature. Our results offer insights for cancer prevention advocacy efforts across the UK and USA and highlight that tax versus non-tax approaches to increasing the cost of cancer-causing products result in similar responses from consumers.

Inequality in survival of people with head and neck cancer: Head and Neck 5000 cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Explanations for socioeconomic inequalities in survival of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients have had limited attention and are not well understood. METHODS: The UK Head and Neck 5000 prospective clinical cohort study was analyzed. Survival relating to measures of socioeconomic status was explored including area-based and individual factors. Three-year overall survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. All-cause mortality was investigated via adjusted Cox Proportional Hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 3440 people were included. Three-year overall survival was 76.3% (95% CI 74.9, 77.7). Inequality in survival by deprivation category, highest education level, and financial concerns was explained by age, sex, health, and behavioral factors. None of the potential explanatory factors fully explained the inequality associated with annual household income or the proportion of income of benefits. CONCLUSION: These results support the interventions to address the financial issues within the wider care and support provided to HNC patients.