Socioeconomic deprivation and cancer survival in a metropolitan area: An analysis of cancer registry data from Hamburg, Germany.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated socioeconomic inequalities within cities. Yet, such analyses are particularly important given the increasing international trend to urbanization. Here we investigated area-based socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in Hamburg, a port city in the North of Germany (population: 1.84 million people). METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of colorectal, lung, female breast, and prostate cancer in 2004-2018 (follow-up until 31.12.2018) and registered in the Hamburg cancer registry were included. Area-based socioeconomic deprivation on urban district level was assigned to the patients and grouped in five quintiles. Relative survival in 2014-2018 was calculated using the period approach. Trend analyses between 2004 and 2018 were conducted. Relative excess risks adjusted for age and stage were computed with model-based period analyses. FINDINGS: For the 73,106 included patients, age-standardized 5-year relative survival in 2014-2018 decreased with increasing deprivation with significant differences between the most and least deprived group of 14·7 (prostate), 10·8 (colorectal), 8·0 (breast), and 2·5 (lung) percent units. Standardization by cancer stage decreased the difference for prostate cancer to 8·5 percent units and for breast cancer to 3·6 percent units but had only a minor effect for colorectal and lung cancer. Similar socioeconomic inequalities were already present in 2004-08. INTERPRETATION: Strong socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival were observed in Hamburg, which could be partly explained by differences in the stage distribution. Further research including information on screening participation as well as information on cancer care are important to further understand and finally overcome these inequalities. FUNDING: German Cancer Aid.

Small-area analysis on socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival for 25 cancer sites in Germany.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival have been reported in various countries but it is uncertain to what extent they persist in countries with relatively comprehensive health insurance coverage such as Germany. We investigated the association between area-based socioeconomic deprivation on municipality level and cancer survival for 25 cancer sites in Germany. We used data from seven population-based cancer registries (covering 32 million inhabitants). Patients diagnosed in 1998 to 2014 with one of 25 most common cancer sites were included. Area-based socioeconomic deprivation was assessed using the categorized German Index of Multiple Deprivation (GIMD) on municipality level. We estimated 3-month, 1-year, 5-year and 5-year conditional on 1-year age-standardized relative survival using period approach for 2012 to 2014. Trend analyses were conducted for periods between 2003-2005 and 2012-2014. Model-based period analysis was used to calculate relative excess risks (RER) adjusted for age and stage. In total, 2 333 547 cases were included. For all cancers combined, 5-year survival rates by GIMD quintile were 61.6% in Q1 (least deprived), 61.2% in Q2, 60.4% in Q3, 59.9% in Q4 and 59.0% in Q5 (most deprived). For most cancer sites, the most deprived quintile had lower 5-year survival compared to the least deprived quintile even after adjusting for stage (all cancer sites combined, RER 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.19). For some cancer sites, this association was stronger during short-term follow-up. Trend analyses showed improved survival from earlier to recent periods but persisting deprivation differences. The underlying reasons for these persisting survival inequalities and strategies to overcome them should be further investigated.

Estimation of the Potentially Avoidable Excess Deaths Associated with Socioeconomic Inequalities in Cancer Survival in Germany.

Many countries have reported survival inequalities due to regional socioeconomic deprivation. To quantify the potential gain from eliminating cancer survival disadvantages associated with area-based deprivation in Germany, we calculated the number of avoidable excess deaths. We used population-based cancer registry data from 11 of 16 German federal states. Patients aged ≥15 years diagnosed with an invasive malignant tumor between 2008 and 2017 were included. Area-based socioeconomic deprivation was assessed using the quintiles of the German Index of Multiple Deprivation (GIMD) 2010 on a municipality level nationwide. Five-year age-standardized relative survival for 25 most common cancer sites and for total cancer were calculated using period analysis. Incidence and number of avoidable excess deaths in Germany in 2013-2016 were estimated. Summed over the 25 cancer sites, 4100 annual excess deaths (3.0% of all excess deaths) could have been avoided each year in Germany during the period 2013-2016 if relative survival were in all regions comparable with the least deprived regions. Colorectal, oral and pharynx, prostate, and bladder cancer contributed the largest numbers of avoidable excess deaths. Our results provide a good basis to estimate the potential of intervention programs for reducing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer burden in Germany.

Educational inequalities and regional variation in colorectal cancer survival in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported lower colorectal cancer (CRC) survival in patients with low compared to high educational levels. We investigated the impact of education on CRC survival by using both individual and area-based information on education. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with CRC in Finland in 2007-2016 were followed up for death until the end of 2016. Age-standardized relative survival and relative excess risk of death (RER) were estimated by sex using period approach. RERs were adjusted for age, stage at diagnosis, cancer site, urbanity, hospital district and municipality by using Bayesian piecewise constant excess hazard models. Analyses were conducted including individual (basic, secondary, high) and area-based (quartiles Q1-Q4 based on the proportion of population with basic education) education separately as well as both measures in one model. RESULTS: We analysed in all 24 462 CRC patients. There was a clear gradient in 5-year relative survival across education groups (men: basic 62 %, secondary 64 %, high 69 %; women: basic 61 %, secondary 67 %, high 71 %). Compared to the basic education group, RER in the high education group was significantly lower. This association was still present after including area-based education in the models (men: RER 0.72, 95 % Confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.81; women: RER 0.76, 95 % CI 0.59-0.96). Area-based education revealed smaller effect estimates than individual education in CRC survival and no association for men. CONCLUSION: Individual education information should be preferred over area-based when survival differences are studied by education. Educational differences in CRC survival are still present in Finland.

Area-Based Socioeconomic Inequalities in Colorectal Cancer Survival in Germany: Investigation Based on Population-Based Clinical Cancer Registration.

Background: Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer survival have been observed in many countries. To overcome these inequalities, the underlying reasons must be disclosed. Methods: Using data from three population-based clinical cancer registries in Germany, we investigated whether associations between area-based socioeconomic deprivation and survival after colorectal cancer depended on patient-, tumor- or treatment-related factors. Patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in 2000-2015 were assigned to one of five deprivation groups according to the municipality of the place of residence using the German Index of Multiple Deprivation. Cox proportional hazards regression models with various levels of adjustment and stratifications were applied. Results: Among 38,130 patients, overall 5-year survival was 4.8% units lower in the most compared to the least deprived areas. Survival disparities were strongest in younger patients, in rectal cancer patients, in stage I cancer, in the latest period, and with longer follow-up. Disparities persisted after adjustment for stage, utilization of surgery and screening colonoscopy uptake rates. They were mostly still present when restricting to patients receiving treatment according to guidelines. Conclusion: We observed socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer survival in Germany. Further studies accounting for potential differences in non-cancer mortality and exploring treatment patterns in detail are needed.

Socioeconomic differences and lung cancer survival in Germany: Investigation based on population-based clinical cancer registration.

OBJECTIVES: Studies from several countries reported socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer survival. Hypothesized reasons are differences in cancer care or tumor characteristics. We investigated associations of small-area deprivation and lung cancer survival in Germany and the possible impact of differences in patient, tumor or treatment factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients registered with a primary tumor of the lung between 2000-2015 in three German population-based clinical cancer registries were included. Area-based socioeconomic deprivation on municipality level was measured with the categorized German Index of Multiple Deprivation. Association of deprivation with overall survival was investigated with Cox regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 22,905 patients were included. Five-year overall survival from the least to the most deprived quintile were 17.2%, 15.9%, 16.7%, 15.7%, and 14.4%. After adjustment for patient and tumor factors, the most deprived group had a lower survival compared to the least deprived group (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.11). Subgroup analyses revealed lower survival in the most deprived compared to the least deprived quintile in patients with stage I-III [HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06-1.22]. The association persisted when restricting to patients receiving surgery but was attenuated for subgroups receiving either chemotherapy or radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate differences in lung cancer survival according to area deprivation in Germany, which were more pronounced in patients with I-III stage cancer. Future research should address in more detail the underlying reasons for the observed inequalities and possible approaches to overcome them.

Socioeconomic Differences and Lung Cancer Survival-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The impact of socioeconomic differences on cancer survival has been investigated for several cancer types showing lower cancer survival in patients from lower socioeconomic groups. However, little is known about the relation between the strength of association and the level of adjustment and level of aggregation of the socioeconomic status measure. Here, we conduct the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the association of individual and area-based measures of socioeconomic status with lung cancer survival. Methods: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we searched for studies on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival in four electronic databases. A study was included if it reported a measure of survival in relation to education, income, occupation, or composite measures (indices). If possible, meta-analyses were conducted for studies reporting on individual and area-based socioeconomic measures. Results: We included 94 studies in the review, of which 23 measured socioeconomic status on an individual level and 71 on an area-based level. Seventeen studies were eligible to be included in the meta-analyses. The meta-analyses revealed a poorer prognosis for patients with low individual income (pooled hazard ratio: 1.13, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08-1.19, reference: high income), but not for individual education. Group comparisons for hazard ratios of area-based studies indicated a poorer prognosis for lower socioeconomic groups, irrespective of the socioeconomic measure. In most studies, reported 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates across socioeconomic status groups showed decreasing rates with decreasing socioeconomic status for both individual and area-based measures. We cannot confirm a consistent relationship between level of aggregation and effect size, however, comparability across studies was hampered by heterogeneous reporting of socioeconomic status and survival measures. Only eight studies considered smoking status in the analysis. Conclusions: Our findings suggest a weak positive association between individual income and lung cancer survival. Studies reporting on socioeconomic differences in lung cancer survival should consider including smoking status of the patients in their analysis and to stratify by relevant prognostic factors to further explore the reasons for socioeconomic differences. A common definition for socioeconomic status measures is desirable to further enhance comparisons between nations and across different levels of aggregation.

Air pollution and airway resistance at age 8 years - the PIAMA birth cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution has been found to adversely affect children's lung function. Forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced vital capacity from spirometry have been studied most frequently, but measurements of airway resistance may provide additional information. We assessed associations of long-term air pollution exposure with airway resistance. METHODS: We measured airway resistance at age 8 with the interrupter resistance technique (Rint) in participants of the Dutch PIAMA birth cohort study. We linked Rint with estimated annual average air pollution concentrations [nitrogen oxides (NO2, NOx), PM2.5 absorbance ("soot"), and particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM2.5), < 10 µm (PM10) and 2.5-10 µm (PMcoarse)] at the birth address and current home address (n = 983). Associations between air pollution exposure and interrupter resistance (Rint) were assessed using multiple linear regression adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: We found that higher levels of NO2 at the current address were associated with higher Rint [adj. mean difference (95% confidence interval) per interquartile range increase in NO2: 0.018 (0.001, 0.035) kPa·s·L- 1]. Similar trends were observed for the other pollutants, except, PM10. No association was found between Rint and exposure at the birth address. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the hypothesis that air pollution exposure is associated with a lower lung function in schoolchildren.

Radiotherapy and subsequent thyroid cancer in German childhood cancer survivors: a nested case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is associated with a risk of subsequent neoplasms (SN) in childhood cancer survivors. It has been shown that children's thyroid glands are especially susceptible. The aim is to quantify the risk of a second neck neoplasm after primary cancer radiotherapy with emphasis on thyroid cancer. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study: 29 individuals, diagnosed with a solid SN in the neck region, including 17 with thyroid cancer, in 1980-2002 and 57 matched controls with single neoplasms were selected from the database of the German Childhood Cancer Registry. We investigated the risk associated with radiotherapy exposure given per body region, adjusted for chemotherapy. RESULTS: 16/17 (94.1 %) thyroid SN cases, 9/12 (75 %) other neck SN cases and 34/57 (59.6 %) controls received radiotherapy, with median doses of 27.8, 25 and 24 Gy, respectively. Radiotherapy exposure to the neck region increased the risk of the other neck SNs by 4.2 % (OR = 1.042/Gy (95 %-CI 0.980-1.109)) and of thyroid SN by 5.1 % (OR = 1.051/Gy (95 %-CI 0.984-1.123)), and radiotherapy to the neck or spine region increased the thyroid risk by 6.6 % (OR = 1.066/Gy (95 %-CI 1.010-1.125)). Chemotherapy was not a confounder. Exposure to other body regions was not associated with increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Radiotherapy in the neck or spine region increases the risk of thyroid cancer, while neck exposure increases the risk of any other solid SN to a similar extent. Other studies showed a decreasing risk of subsequent thyroid cancer for very high doses; we cannot confirm this.

The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) is seen as an increasingly relevant issue for global public health and requires a reliable and comprehensive operationalization. By now, there is limited evidence on how the development of tools measuring HL proceeded in recent years and if scholars considered existing methodological guidance when developing an instrument. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of generic measurement tools developed to assess HL by searching PubMed, ERIC, CINAHL and Web of Knowledge (2009 forward). Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts/ full text articles for inclusion according to predefined criteria. Additionally we conducted a reporting quality appraisal according to the survey reporting guideline SURGE. RESULTS: We identified 17 articles reporting on the development and validation of 17 instruments measuring health literacy. More than two thirds of all instruments are based on a multidimensional construct of health literacy. Moreover, there is a trend towards a mixed measurement (self-report and direct test) of health literacy with 41% of instruments applying it, though results strongly indicate a weakness of coherence between the underlying constructs measured. Overall, almost every third instrument is based on assessment formats modeled on already existing functional literacy screeners such as the REALM or the TOFHLA and 30% of the included articles do not report on significant reporting features specified in the SURGE guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Scholars recently developing instruments that measure health literacy mainly comply with recommendations of the academic circle by applying multidimensional constructs and mixing up measurement approaches to capture health literacy comprehensively. Nonetheless, there is still a dependence on assessment formats, rooted in functional literacy measurement contradicting the widespread call for new instruments. All things considered, there is no clear "consensus" on HL measurement but a convergence to more comprehensive tools. Giving attention to this finding can help to offer direction towards the development of comparable and reliable health literacy assessment tools that effectively respond to the informational needs of populations.