An investigation of cancer survival inequalities associated with individual-level socio-economic status, area-level deprivation, and contextual effects, in a cancer patient cohort in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: People living in more deprived areas of high-income countries have lower cancer survival than those in less deprived areas. However, associations between individual-level socio-economic circumstances and cancer survival are relatively poorly understood. Moreover, few studies have addressed contextual effects, where associations between individual-level socio-economic status and cancer survival vary depending on area-based deprivation. METHODS: Using 9276 individual-level observations from a longitudinal study in England and Wales, we examined the association with cancer survival of area-level deprivation and individual-level occupation, education, and income, for colorectal, prostate and breast cancer patients aged 20-99 at diagnosis. With flexible parametric excess hazard models, we estimated excess mortality across individual-level and area-level socio-economic variables and investigated contextual effects. RESULTS: For colorectal cancers, we found evidence of an association between education and cancer survival in men with Excess Hazard Ratio (EHR) = 0.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.60;1.08 comparing "degree-level qualification and higher" to "no qualification" and EHR = 0.74 [0.56;0.97] comparing "apprenticeships and vocational qualification" to "no qualification", adjusted on occupation and income; and between occupation and cancer survival for women with EHR = 0.77 [0.54;1.10] comparing "managerial/professional occupations" to "manual/technical," and EHR = 0.81 [0.63;1.06] comparing "intermediate" to "manual/technical", adjusted on education and income. For breast cancer in women, we found evidence of an association with income (EHR = 0.52 [0.29;0.95] for the highest income quintile compared to the lowest, adjusted on education and occupation), while for prostate cancer, all three individual-level socio-economic variables were associated to some extent with cancer survival. We found contextual effects of area-level deprivation on survival inequalities between occupation types for breast and prostate cancers, suggesting wider individual-level inequalities in more deprived areas compared to least deprived areas. Individual-level income inequalities for breast cancer were more evident than an area-level differential, suggesting that area-level deprivation might not be the most effective measure of inequality for this cancer. For colorectal cancer in both sexes, we found evidence suggesting area- and individual-level inequalities, but no evidence of contextual effects. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight that both individual and contextual effects contribute to inequalities in cancer outcomes. These insights provide potential avenues for more effective policy and practice.

An evaluation of a national mass media campaign to raise public awareness of possible lung cancer symptoms in England in 2016 and 2017.

BACKGROUND: A two-phase 'respiratory symptoms' mass media campaign was conducted in 2016 and 2017 in England raising awareness of cough and worsening shortness of breath as symptoms warranting a general practitioner (GP) visit. METHOD: A prospectively planned pre-post evaluation was done using routinely collected data on 15 metrics, including GP attendance, GP referral, emergency presentations, cancers diagnosed (five metrics), cancer stage, investigations (two metrics), outpatient attendances, inpatient admissions, major lung resections and 1-year survival. The primary analysis compared 2015 with 2017. Trends in metrics over the whole period were also considered. The effects of the campaign on awareness of lung cancer symptoms were evaluated using bespoke surveys. RESULTS: There were small favourable statistically significant and clinically important changes over 2 years in 11 of the 15 metrics measured, including a 2.11% (95% confidence interval 1.02-3.20, p < 0.001) improvement in the percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at an early stage. However, these changes were not accompanied by increases in GP attendances. Furthermore, the time trends showed a gradual change in the metrics rather than steep changes occurring during or after the campaigns. CONCLUSION: There were small positive changes in most metrics relating to lung cancer diagnosis after this campaign. However, the pattern over time challenges whether the improvements are wholly attributable to the campaign. Given the importance of education on cancer in its own right, raising awareness of symptoms should remain important. However further research is needed to maximise the effect on health outcomes.

Describing socio-economic variation in life expectancy according to an individual's education, occupation and wage in England and Wales: An analysis of the ONS Longitudinal Study.

People who live in more deprived areas have poorer health outcomes, and this inequality is a major driver of health and social policy. Many interventions targeting these disparities implicitly assume that poorer health is predominantly associated with area-level factors, and that these inequalities are the same for men and women. However, health differentials due to individual socio-economic status (SES) of men and women are less well documented. We used census data linked to the ONS Longitudinal Study to derive individual-level SES in terms of occupation, education and estimated wage, and examined differences in adult mortality and life expectancy. We modelled age-, sex- and SES-specific mortality using Poisson regression, and summarised mortality differences using life expectancy at age 20. We compared the results to those calculated using area-level deprivation metrics. Wide inequalities in life expectancy between SES groups were observed, although differences across SES groups were smaller for women than for men. The widest inequalities were found across men's education (7.2-year (95% CI: 3.0-10.1) difference in life expectancy between groups) and wage (7.0-year (95% CI: 3.5-9.8) difference), and women's education (5.4-year (95% CI: 2.2-8.1) difference). Men with no qualifications had the lowest life expectancy of all groups. In terms of the number of years' difference in life expectancy, the inequalities measured here with individual-level data were of a similar magnitude to inequalities identified previously using area-level deprivation metrics. These data show that health inequalities are as strongly related to individual SES as to area-level deprivation, highlighting the complementary usefulness of these different metrics. Indeed, poor outcomes are likely to be a product of both community and individual influences. Current policy which bases health spending decisions on evidence of inequalities between geographical areas may overlook individual-level SES inequalities for those living in affluent areas, as well as missing important sex differences.

Assessment of the concordance between individual-level and area-level measures of socio-economic deprivation in a cancer patient cohort in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: Most research on health inequalities uses aggregated deprivation scores assigned to the small area where the patient lives; however, the concordance between aggregate area-level deprivation measures and personal deprivation experienced by individuals living in the area is poorly understood. Our objective was to examine the agreement between individual and ecological deprivation. We tested the concordance between metrics of income, occupation and education at individual and area levels, and assessed the reliability of area-based deprivation measures to predict individual deprivation circumstances. SETTING: England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A cancer patient cohort of 9547 individuals extracted from the Office for National Statistics Longitudinal Study. OUTCOMES: We quantified the concordance between measures of income, occupation and education at individual and area level. In addition, we used ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curves and the area under the curve (AUC) to assess the reliability of area-based deprivation measures to predict individual deprivation circumstances. RESULTS: We found low concordance between individual-level and area-level indicators of deprivation (Cramer's V statistics range between 0.07 and 0.20). The most commonly used indicator in health inequalities research, area-based income deprivation, was a poor predictor of individual income status (AUC between 0.56 and 0.59), whereas education and occupation were slightly better predictors (AUC between 0.62 and 0.65). The results were consistent across sexes and across six major cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that ecological deprivation measures capture only part of the relationship between deprivation and health outcomes, especially with respect to income measurement. This has important implications for our understanding of the relationship between deprivation and health, and, as a consequence, healthcare policy. The results have a wide-reaching impact for the way in which we measure and monitor inequalities, and in turn, fund and organise current UK healthcare policy aimed at reducing them.

Are inequalities in cancer diagnosis through emergency presentation narrowing, widening or remaining unchanged? Longitudinal analysis of English population-based data 2006-2013.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of cancer through emergency presentation is associated with poorer prognosis. While reductions in emergency presentations have been described, whether known sociodemographic inequalities are changing is uncertain. METHODS: We analysed 'Routes to Diagnosis' data on patients aged ≥25 years diagnosed in England during 2006-2013 with any of 33 common or rarer cancers. Using binary logistic regression we determined time-trends in diagnosis through emergency presentation by age, deprivation and cancer site. RESULTS: Overall adjusted proportions of emergency presentations decreased during the study period (2006: 23%, 2013: 20%). Substantial baseline (2006) inequalities in emergency presentation risk by age and deprivation remained largely unchanged. There was evidence (p<0.05) of reductions in the risk of emergency presentations for most (28/33) cancer sites, without apparent associations between the size of reduction and baseline risk (p=0.26). If there had been modest reductions in age inequalities (ie, patients in each age group acquiring the same percentage of emergency presentations as the adjacent group with lower risk), in the last study year we could have expected around 11 000 fewer diagnoses through emergency presentation (ie, a nationwide percentage of 16% rather than the observed 20%). For similarly modest reductions in deprivation inequalities, we could have expected around 3000 fewer (ie, 19%). CONCLUSION: The proportion of cancer diagnoses through emergency presentation is decreasing but age and deprivation inequalities prevail, indicating untapped opportunities for further improvements by reducing these inequalities. The observed reductions in proportions across nearly all cancer sites are likely to reflect both earlier help-seeking and improvements in diagnostic healthcare pathways, across both easier-to-suspect and harder-to-suspect cancers.

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence.

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.