Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer living in more deprived areas experience worse survival than those in more affluent areas. Those living in more deprived areas face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. These barriers may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in survival. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, hospital delay and treatments received among patients with colorectal cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare. DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2023. Grey literature, including HMIC, BASE and Google Advanced Search, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Observational UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either hospital delay or treatments received. The QUIPS tool assessed bias risk, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020. RESULTS: 41 of the 7209 identified references were included. 12 studies evaluated 7 different hospital intervals. There was a significant association between area-level deprivation and a longer time from first presentation in primary care to diagnosis. 32 studies evaluated treatments received. There were socioeconomic inequalities in surgery and chemotherapy but not radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with colorectal cancer face inequalities across the cancer care continuum. Further research is needed to understand why and what evidence-based actions can reduce these inequalities in treatment. Qualitative research of patients and clinicians conducted across various settings would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities. Further research should also consider using a causal approach to future studies to considerably strengthen the interpretation. Clinicians can try and mitigate some potential causes of colorectal cancer inequalities, including signposting to financial advice and patient transport schemes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022347652.

Where are the inequalities in ovarian cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer from more deprived areas may face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, treatments received and hospital delay among patients diagnosed with ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom, a country with universal healthcare. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED, PsycINFO and HMIC from inception to January 2023. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either treatments received or hospital delay. The inclusion of studies from one country ensured greater comparability. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to PRISMA 2020 and registered with PROSPERO [CRD42022332071]. RESULTS: Out of 2876 references screened, ten were included. Eight studies evaluated treatments received, and two evaluated hospital delays. We consistently observed socioeconomic inequalities in the likelihood of surgery (range of odds ratios 0.24-0.99) and chemotherapy (range of odds ratios 0.70-0.99) among patients from the most, compared with the least, deprived areas. There were no associations between socioeconomic groups and hospital delay. POLICY SUMMARY: Ovarian cancer treatments differed between socioeconomic groups despite the availability of universal healthcare. Further research is needed to understand why, though suggested reasons include patient choice, health literacy, and financial and employment factors. Qualitative research would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities.

Managing side effects of cancer immunotherapy for the acute physician.

Immunotherapy is a novel type of anti-cancer treatment that works by upregulating the host's immune system to fight against cancer cells. Landmark immunotherapy trials have demonstrated improvements in response rates and survival compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Specific immunotherapies known as checkpoint inhibitors are now routinely used in a range of cancers including melanoma, lung, renal and urological cancers. Immunotherapies are associated with immune-related adverse events which are very different to those seen with traditional cytotoxic chemotherapies. This can present a new challenge to oncologists, acute physicians and the wider team of health-care professionals who look after patients receiving immunotherapy. Generally, these side effects are easily managed but some, if untreated, can be subtle and potentially life-threatening. Patients on immunotherapy may present to a wide variety of medical professionals including the emergency department, primary care and general medical admissions units. It is therefore vital that there is increased awareness and education to identify and manage side effects of immunotherapy effectively.

Risk factors for emergency presentation with lung and colorectal cancers: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patient and practitioner factors that influence cancer diagnosis via emergency presentation (EP). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EBM Reviews, Science and Social Sciences Citation Indexes, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science and Humanities. Searches were undertaken from 1996 to 2014. No language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design assessing factors associated with diagnosis of colorectal or lung cancer via EP, or describing an intervention to impact on EP, were included. Studies involving previously diagnosed cancer patients, assessing only referral pathway effectiveness, outcomes related to diagnosis or post-EP management were excluded. The population was individual or groups of adult patients or primary care practitioners. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion. RESULTS: 22 studies with over 200,000 EPs were included, most providing strong evidence. Five were graded 'insufficient', primarily due to missing information rather than methodological weakness. Older patient age was associated with EP for lung and colorectal cancers (OR 1.11-11.03 and 1.19-5.85, respectively). Women were more at risk of EP for lung but not colorectal cancer. Higher deprivation increased the likelihood of lung cancer EP, but evidence for colorectal was less conclusive. Being unmarried (or divorced/widowed) increased the likelihood of EP for colorectal cancer, which was also associated with pain, obstruction and weight loss. Lack of a regular source of primary care, and lower primary care use were positively associated with EP. Only three studies considered practitioner factors, two involving diagnostic tests. No conclusive evidence was found. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-related factors, such as age, gender and deprivation, increase the likelihood of cancer being diagnosed as the result of an EP, while cancer symptoms and patterns of healthcare utilisation are also relevant. Further work is needed to understand the context in which risk factors for EP exist and influence help-seeking.