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.

Describing mortality trends for major cancer sites in 133 intermediate regions of Brazil and an ecological study of its causes.

BACKGROUND: In Brazil, 211 thousand (16.14%) of all death certificates in 2016 identified cancer as the underlying cause of death, and it is expected that around 320 thousand will receive a cancer diagnosis in 2019. We aimed to describe trends of cancer mortality from 1996 to 2016, in 133 intermediate regions of Brazil, and to discuss macro-regional differences of trends by human development and healthcare provision. METHODS: This ecological study assessed georeferenced official data on population and mortality, health spending, and healthcare provision from Brazilian governmental agencies. The regional office of the United Nations Development Program provided data on the Human Development Index in Brazil. Deaths by misclassified or unspecified causes (garbage codes) were redistributed proportionally to known causes. Age-standardized mortality rates used the world population as reference. Prais-Winsten autoregression allowed calculating trends for each region, sex and cancer type. RESULTS: Trends were predominantly on the increase in the North and Northeast, whereas they were mainly decreasing or stationary in the South, Southeast, and Center-West. Also, the variation of trends within intermediate regions was more pronounced in the North and Northeast. Intermediate regions with higher human development, government health spending, and hospital beds had more favorable trends for all cancers and many specific cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of cancer trends in the country reflect differences in human development and the provision of health resources across the regions. Increasing trends of cancer mortality in low-income Brazilian regions can overburden their already fragile health infrastructure. Improving the healthcare provision and reducing socioeconomic disparities can prevent increasing trends of mortality by all cancers and specific cancer types in Brazilian more impoverished regions.