Income disparities in loss in life expectancy after colon and rectal cancers: a Swedish register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Differences in the prognosis after colorectal cancer (CRC) by socioeconomic position (SEP) have been reported previously; however, most studies focused on survival differences at a particular time since diagnosis. We quantified the lifetime impact of CRC and its variation by SEP, using individualised income to conceptualise SEP. METHODS: Data included all adults with a first-time diagnosis of colon or rectal cancers in Sweden between 2008 and 2021. The analysis was done separately for colon and rectal cancers using flexible parametric models. For each cancer and income group, we estimated the life expectancy in the absence of cancer, the life expectancy in the presence of cancer and the loss in life expectancy (LLE). RESULTS: We found large income disparities in life expectancy after a cancer diagnosis, with larger differences among the youngest patients. Higher income resulted in more years lost following a cancer diagnosis. For example, 40-year-old females with colon cancer lost 17.64 years if in the highest-income group and 13.68 years if in the lowest-income group. Rectal cancer resulted in higher LLE compared with colon cancer. Males lost a larger proportion of their lives. All patients, including the oldest, lost more than 30% of their remaining life expectancy. Based on the number of colon and rectal cancer diagnoses in 2021, colon cancer results in almost double the number of years lost compared with rectal cancer (24 669 and 12 105 years, respectively). CONCLUSION: While our results should be interpreted in line with what individualised income represents, they highlight the need to address inequalities.

Comparing outcomes and cost in surgery versus watch & wait surveillance of patients with rectal cancer post neoadjuvant long course chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Watch and wait (W&W) in complete clinical responders after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has increasingly robust data supporting its oncological safety. Recently, studies have assessed the real-world costs of this strategy compared to surgical resection. Our aim was to compare our oncological safety and costs associated with operative and surveillance strategies to international literature. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected and analysed via electronic health records from March 2014 to March 2021 in Christchurch, New Zealand. Two cohorts were created based on intention to treat. All hospital events were recorded and costed, as well as oncologic outcomes. Our primary endpoints were the cumulative cost of both strategies, 3-year survival rate, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were identified who had rectal cancers resected (OT) with a yPT0N0 pathology, and 42 who were on the wait-and-watch (W&W) audit after having a clinical complete response. After exclusions, we identified 38 OT and 23 W&W patients; the W&W group were more co-morbid (P = 0.05), had worse functional status (P = 0.008), higher BMI (P = 0.34) and more favourable clinical tumour staging (P = 0.01). The operative treatment (OT) group (n = 38) had more acute admissions (34% versus 13% in W&W, P = 0.08, OR 0.29). There was a 35.7% (n = 8 of 23) local recurrence in W&W and none in the OT group (P ≤ 0.001), with successful salvage in the W&W with local recurrence in 71.5% (n = 5 of 7). Three-year distant metastasis-free rate was 97.3% in the OT group and 90.9% in W&W (p = 0.05). Overall survival was 100% (W&W) and 94.7% (OT); (P = 0.019). Care in the OT group cost more than W&W, accounting for local regrowth management; $NZ70,759.56 versus $NZ47,905.52 (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: This study found better oncological outcomes in the OT group, whilst the W&W group had reduced morbidity and acute bed days. The cost of wait and watch was approximately two-thirds that of operative treatment, even accounting for salvage procedures for local regrowth.