Impact of national cancer policies on cancer survival trends and socioeconomic inequalities in England, 1996-2013: population based study

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.

Presentation, follow-up, and outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance for prostate cancer: experiences of a high-volume UK centre

BACKGROUND

Experiences of African/Afro-Caribbean men on active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer (PCa) in the United Kingdom (UK) are not well documented. We compared follow-up appointments, adherence, and clinical outcomes among African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS at a high-volume UK hospital with other ethnicities.

METHODS

Men with confirmed low-intermediate risk Pca who attended the AS clinic (2005-2016) and had undergone ≥1 follow-up biopsy (n = 458) were included. Non-adherence (defined as >20% missed appointments), suspicion of disease progression (any upgrading, >30% positive cores, cT-stage > 3, PIRADS > 3), any upgrading from diagnostic biopsy and conversion to active treatment (prostatectomy, radiotherapy or hormone therapy) according to ethnicity (African/Afro-Caribbean versus other ethnicities) were assessed using multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three percent of eligible men were recorded as African/Afro-Caribbean, while the remainder were predominantly Caucasian. African/Afro-Caribbean men had slightly lower PSA at diagnosis (median 5.0 vs. 6.0 ng/mL) and more positive cores at diagnosis (median 2 vs. 1). They had a substantially higher rate of non-attendance at scheduled follow-up visits (24% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Adjusted analyses suggest African/Afro-Caribbean men may be at increased risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.91, P = 0.054) and upgrading (HR: 1.29; 95% CI 0.87-1.92, P = 0.305), though neither reached statistical significance. No difference in risk of conversion to treatment was observed between ethnic groups (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.47, P = 0.873).

CONCLUSIONS

African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS for PCa in the UK are less likely to adhere to scheduled appointments, suggesting a more tailored service addressing their specific needs may be required. While African/Afro-Caribbean men were no more likely to convert to treatment than Caucasian/other men, findings of a potentially higher risk of disease progression signal the need for careful selection and monitoring of African/Afro-Caribbean men on AS. Larger prospective, multicentre studies with longer follow-up are required to provide more definitive conclusions.

Prediction of cancer survival for cohorts of patients most recently diagnosed using multi-model inference

Despite a large choice of models, functional forms and types of effects, the selection of excess hazard models for prediction of population cancer survival is not widespread in the literature. We propose multi-model inference based on excess hazard model(s) selected using Akaike information criteria or Bayesian information criteria for prediction and projection of cancer survival. We evaluate the properties of this approach using empirical data of patients diagnosed with breast, colon or lung cancer in 1990-2011. We artificially censor the data on 31 December 2010 and predict five-year survival for the 2010 and 2011 cohorts. We compare these predictions to the observed five-year cohort estimates of cancer survival and contrast them to predictions from an a priori selected simple model, and from the period approach. We illustrate the approach by replicating it for cohorts of patients for which stage at diagnosis and other important prognosis factors are available. We find that model-averaged predictions and projections of survival have close to minimal differences with the Pohar-Perme estimation of survival in many instances, particularly in subgroups of the population. Advantages of information-criterion based model selection include (i) transparent model-building strategy, (ii) accounting for model selection uncertainty, (iii) no a priori assumption for effects, and (iv) projections for patients outside of the sample.

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.

Socioeconomic deprivation and long-term outcomes after elective surgery: analysis of prospective data from two observational studies

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with health inequalities. We explored relationships between socioeconomic group and outcomes after elective surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

We combined data from two observational studies in 115 NHS hospitals and determined socioeconomic group using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) quintiles based on place of residence. Postoperative complications and 3-yr survival were assessed using logistic and Cox regression. Univariate analyses were adjusted for age differences between IMD quintiles. Multivariable analyses were used to account for other baseline risk factors including sex and comorbid disease. Results are reported as n (%), hazard ratios (HR) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications developed in 971/9051 patients (10.7%) and 1597/9043 patients (17.7%) died within 3 yr. Complication rates increased with deprivation (reference group least-deprived IMD5): IMD1 (OR=1.44 [1.17-1.78]; P<0.001), IMD2 (OR=1.38 [1.12-1.70]; P<0.01), IMD3 (OR=1.09 [0.88-1.35]: P=0.44), IMD4 (OR=0.89 [0.71-1.11]; P=0.30). More patients from the most deprived quintile died (IMD1) (n=349, 18.8%) compared with the least deprived (IMD5) (n=297, 15.9%) with a trend across the socioeconomic spectrum (P=0.01). After age adjustment, patients in the most deprived areas experienced reduced 3-yr survival: IMD1 (HR=1.43 [1.23-1.67]; P<0.0001), IMD2 (HR=1.35 [1.15-1.57]; P<0.001), IMD3 (HR=1.04 [0.89-1.23]; P=0.60), and IMD4 (HR=1.11 [0.95-1.30]; P=0.19). This finding persisted in risk-adjusted analyses. Increased complication rates only partially explained this reduced survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with worse long-term outcomes after elective surgery. This risk factor should be considered when planning perioperative care for patients from deprived areas.

Influence of deprivation and rurality on patient-reported outcomes of men living with and beyond prostate cancer diagnosis in the UK: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

In the UK, inequalities exist in prostate cancer incidence, survival and treatment by area deprivation and rurality. This work aimed to identify variation in patient-reported outcomes of men with prostate cancer by area type.

METHODS

A population-based survey of men 18-42 months after prostate cancer diagnosis (N = 35608) measured self-assessed health (SAH) using the EQ-5D and five functional domains using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26).

RESULTS

Mean SAH was higher for men in least deprived areas compared to most deprived (difference 6.3 (95 %CI 5.6-7.2)). SAH scores were lower for men in most urban areas compared to most rural (difference 2.4 (95 %CI 1.8-3.0)). Equivalent estimates in the general population reported a 13 point difference by deprivation and a 4 point difference by rurality. For each EPIC-26 domain, functional outcomes were better for men in the least deprived areas, with clinically meaningful differences observed for urinary incontinence and hormonal function. There were no clinically meaningful differences in EPIC-26 outcomes by rurality with less than a three point difference in scores for each domain between urban and rural areas.

CONCLUSION

In men 18-42 months post diagnosis of prostate cancer in the UK, impacts of area deprivation and rurality on self-assessed health related quality of life were not greater than would be expected in the general population. However, clinically meaningful differences were identified for some prostate functional outcomes (urinary and hormonal function) by deprivation. No impact by rurality of residence was identified.

Impact of area-level socioeconomic status and accessibility to treatment on life expectancy after a cancer diagnosis in Queensland, Australia

AIMS

This study quantifies geographic inequities in loss of life expectancy (LOLE) by area-level socioeconomic status (SES) and accessibility to treatment.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted using a population-based cancer-registry cohort (n = 371,570) of Queensland (Australia) residents aged 50-89 years, diagnosed between 1997-2016. Flexible parametric survival models were used to estimate LOLE by area-level SES and accessibility for all invasive cancers and the five leading cancers. The gain in life years that could be achieved if all cancer patients experienced the same relative survival as those in the least disadvantaged-high accessibility category was estimated for the 2016 cohort.

RESULTS

For all invasive cancers, men living in the most disadvantaged areas lost 34 % of life expectancy due to their cancer diagnosis, while those from the least disadvantaged areas lost 25 %. The corresponding percentages for women were 33 % and 23 %. Accessibility had a lower impact on LOLE than SES, with patients from low accessibility areas losing 0-4 % more life expectancy than those from high accessibility areas. For cancer patients diagnosed in 2016 (n = 24,423), an estimated 101,387 life years will be lost. This would be reduced by 19 % if all patients experienced the same relative survival as those from the least disadvantaged-high accessibility areas.

CONCLUSION

The impact of a cancer diagnosis on remaining life expectancy varies by geographical area. Establishing reasons why area disadvantage impacts on life expectancy is crucial to inform subsequent interventions that could increase the life expectancy of cancer patients from more disadvantaged areas.

Stage-specific survival has improved for young breast cancer patients since 2000: but not equally

Purpose

The stage-specific survival of young breast cancer patients has improved, likely due to diagnostic and treatment advances. We addressed whether survival improvements have reached all socioeconomic groups in a country with universal health care and national treatment guidelines.

Methods

Using Norwegian registry data, we assessed stage-specific breast cancer survival by education and income level of 7501 patients (2317 localized, 4457 regional, 233 distant and 494 unknown stage) aged 30–48 years at diagnosis during 2000–2015. Using flexible parametric models and national life tables, we compared excess mortality up to 12 years from diagnosis and 5-year relative survival trends, by education and income as measures of socioeconomic status (SES).

Results

Throughout 2000–2015, regional and distant stage 5-year relative survival improved steadily for patients with high education and high income (high SES), but not for patients with low education and low income (low SES). Regional stage 5-year relative survival improved from 85 to 94% for high SES patients (9% change; 95% confidence interval: 6, 13%), but remained at 84% for low SES patients (0% change; − 12, 12%). Distant stage 5-year relative survival improved from 22 to 58% for high SES patients (36% change; 24, 49%), but remained at 11% for low SES patients (0% change; − 19, 19%).

Conclusions

Regional and distant stage breast cancer survival has improved markedly for high SES patients, but there has been little survival gain for low SES patients. Socioeconomic status matters for the stage-specific survival of young breast cancer patients, even with universal health care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05698-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Comorbidity prevalence among cancer patients: a population-based cohort study of four cancers

BACKGROUND

The presence of comorbidity affects the care of cancer patients, many of whom are living with multiple comorbidities. The prevalence of cancer comorbidity, beyond summary metrics, is not well known. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of comorbid conditions among cancer patients in England, and describe the association between cancer comorbidity and socio-economic position, using population-based electronic health records.

METHODS

We linked England cancer registry records of patients diagnosed with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung or Hodgkin lymphoma between 2009 and 2013, with hospital admissions records. A comorbidity was any one of fourteen specific conditions, diagnosed during hospital admission up to 6 years prior to cancer diagnosis. We calculated the crude and age-sex adjusted prevalence of each condition, the frequency of multiple comorbidity combinations, and used logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of having each condition and the probability of having each condition as a single or one of multiple comorbidities, respectively, by cancer type.

RESULTS

Comorbidity was most prevalent in patients with lung cancer and least prevalent in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Up to two-thirds of patients within each of the four cancer patient cohorts we studied had at least one comorbidity, and around half of the comorbid patients had multiple comorbidities. Our study highlighted common comorbid conditions among the cancer patient cohorts. In all four cohorts, the odds of having a comorbidity and the probability of multiple comorbidity were consistently highest in the most deprived cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer healthcare guidelines may need to consider prominent comorbid conditions, particularly to benefit the prognosis of the most deprived patients who carry the greater burden of comorbidity. Insight into patterns of cancer comorbidity may inform further research into the influence of specific comorbidities on socio-economic inequalities in receipt of cancer treatment and in short-term mortality.

Socioeconomic differences impact overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) prior to achievement of standard therapy

PURPOSE

Survival difference between socioeconomic groups with ovarian cancer has persisted in the United Kingdom despite efforts to reduce disparities in care. Our aim was to delineate critical episodes in the patient journey, where deprivation has most impact on survival.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 834 patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) between 16/8/07-16/2/17 at a large cancer centre serving one of the most deprived areas of the UK. Using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), patients were categorised into five groups.

RESULTS

Surgery was more common in less deprived patients (p < 0.00001). Across IMD groups, there were no differences in complete (R0) cytoreduction rate (r = 0.18, p > 0.05), age, or comorbidity. The R0/total cohort rate increased with increasing IMD group (p < 0.0001). Patients refusing any intervention belonged exclusively to the three most deprived groups; 5/7 patients who refused surgery belonged to the most deprived IMD group. Overall survival in the total patient group was less in IMD group 1-2 compared to 9-10 (p = 0.002). On multivariate analysis, IMD group was not an independent predictor of survival (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic differences in survival manifest in patients not receiving surgical treatment for AOC and are not purely explained by comorbidity, age, stage, or histological factors.

20-year trends in cause-specific heart failure outcomes by sex, socioeconomic status, and place of diagnosis: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is an important public health issue affecting about 1 million people in the UK, but contemporary trends in cause-specific outcomes among different population groups are unknown.

METHODS

In this retrospective, population-based study, we used the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episodes Statistics databases to identify a cohort of patients who had a diagnosis of incident heart failure between Jan 1, 1998, and July 31, 2017. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 30 years or older with a first code for heart failure in their primary care or hospital record during the study period. We assessed cause-specific admission to hospital (ie, hospitalisation) and mortality, by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and place of diagnosis (ie, hospital vs community diagnosis). We calculated outcome rates separately for the first year (first-year rates) and for the second-year onwards (subsequent-year rates). Patients were followed up until death or study end. This study is registered with Clinical Practice Research Datalink Independent Scientific Advisory Committee, protocol number 18_037R.

FINDINGS

We identified 88 416 individuals with incident heart failure over the study period, of whom 43 461 (49%) were female. The mean age was 77·8 years (SD 11·3) and median follow-up was 2·4 years (IQR 0·5 to 5·7). Age-adjusted first-year rates of hospitalisation increased by 28% for all-cause admissions, from 97·1 (95% CI 94·3 to 99·9) to 124·2 (120·9 to 127·5) per 100 person-years; by 28% for heart failure-specific admissions, from 17·2 (16·2 to 18·2) to 22·1 (20·9 to 23·2) per 100 person-years; and by 42% for non-cardiovascular admissions, from 59·2 (57·2 to 61·2) to 83·9 (81·3 to 86·5) per 100 person-years. 167 641 (73%) of 228 113 hospitalisations were for non-cardiovascular causes and annual rate increases were higher for women (3·9%, 95% CI 2·8 to 4·9) than for men (1·4%, 0·6 to 2·1; p<0·0001); and for patients diagnosed with heart failure in hospital (2·4%, 1·4 to 3·3) than those diagnosed in the community (1·2%, 0·3 to 2·2). Annual increases in hospitalisation due to heart failure were 2·6% (1·9 to 3·4) for women compared with stable rates in men (0·6%, -0·9 to 2·1), and 1·6% (0·6 to 2·6) for the most deprived group compared with stable rates for the most affluent group (1·2%, -0·3 to 2·8). A significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalisation was found for the most deprived than for the most affluent (incident rate ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·32 to 1·35) and for the hospital-diagnosed group than for the community-diagnosed group (1·76, 1·73 to 1·80). Age-adjusted first-year rates of all-cause mortality decreased by 6% from 24·5 (95% CI 23·4 to 39·2) to 23·0 (22·0 to 24·1) per 100 person-years. Annual change in mortality was -1·4% (95% CI -2·3 to -0·5) in men but was stable for women (0·3%, -0·5 to 1·1), and -2·7% (-3·2 to -2·2) for the community-diagnosed group compared with -1·1% (-1·8 to -0·4) in the hospital-diagnosed group (p<0·0001). A significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality was seen in the most deprived group than in the most affluent group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 1·05 to 1·11) and in the hospital-diagnosed group than in the community-diagnosed group (1·55, 1·53 to 1·58).

INTERPRETATION

Tailored management strategies and specialist care for patients with heart failure are needed to address persisting and increasing inequalities for men, the most deprived, and for those who are diagnosed with heart failure in hospital, and to address the worrying trends in women.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust.

Contrasting effects of comorbidities on emergency colon cancer diagnosis: a longitudinal data-linkage study in England

BACKGROUND

One in three colon cancers are diagnosed as an emergency, which is associated with worse cancer outcomes. Chronic conditions (comorbidities) affect large proportions of adults and they might influence the risk of emergency presentations (EP).

METHODS

We aimed to evaluate the effect of specific pre-existing comorbidities on the risk of colon cancer being diagnosed following an EP rather than through non-emergency routes. The cohort study included 5745 colon cancer patients diagnosed in England 2005-2010, with individually-linked cancer registry, primary and secondary care data. In addition to multivariable analyses we also used potential-outcomes methods.

RESULTS

Colon cancer patients with comorbidities consulted their GP more frequently with cancer symptoms during the pre-diagnostic year, compared with non-comorbid cancer patients. EP occurred more frequently in patients with 'serious' or complex comorbidities (diabetes, cardiac and respiratory diseases) diagnosed/treated in hospital during the years pre-cancer diagnosis (43% EP in comorbid versus 27% in non-comorbid individuals; multivariable analysis Odds Ratio (OR), controlling for socio-demographic factors and symptoms: men OR = 2.40; 95% CI 2.0-2.9 and women OR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.6-2.4. Among women younger than 60, gynaecological (OR = 3.41; 95% CI 1.2-9.9) or recent onset gastro-intestinal conditions (OR = 2.84; 95% CI 1.1-7.7) increased the risk of EP. In contrast, primary care visits for hypertension monitoring decreased EPs for both genders.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with comorbidities have a greater risk of being diagnosed with cancer as an emergency, although they consult more frequently with cancer symptoms during the year pre-cancer diagnosis. This suggests that comorbidities may interfere with diagnostic reasoning or investigations due to 'competing demands' or because they provide 'alternative explanations'. In contrast, the management of chronic risk factors such as hypertension may offer opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Interventions are needed to support the diagnostic process in comorbid patients. Appropriate guidelines and diagnostic services to support the evaluation of new or changing symptoms in comorbid patients may be useful.

Trends in BRCA testing and socioeconomic deprivation

BRCA testing received much publicity following Angelina Jolie's editorial "My Medical Choice" in May 2013 and updated NICE clinical guidance (CG164) in June 2013. We assessed the effect of these two concurrent events on BRCA testing in one UK catchment area and relate this to socioeconomic deprivation. A database of 1393 patients who received BRCA testing was collated. This included individuals with breast/ovarian cancer, and those unaffected by cancer, where a relative has a ≥10% probability of carrying a BRCA variant which affects function. A segmented regression was conducted to estimate changes in testing. To examine the relative distribution of testing by deprivation, the deprivation status of patients who received testing was examined. Between April 2010 and March 2017, testing increased 11-fold and there was an 84% increase (P = 0.006) in BRCA1/2 testing in the month following both publications. In the pre-publication period, there was no statistically significant difference in testing between advantaged and disadvantaged areas (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99-1.48; P = 0.06). In the post-publication period helped by a larger sample size, the difference was statistically significant (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08-1.29; P = 0.0002) and of a similar magnitude to the pre-publication period. Testing increased following Jolie's editorial and NICE guidance update. However, further research is needed to examine differences in testing by the deprivation group which adjusts for confounders.

Geographical Variations in Prostate Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of International Evidence

Background: Previous reviews of geographical disparities in the prostate cancer continuum from diagnosis to mortality have identified a consistent pattern of poorer outcomes with increasing residential disadvantage and for rural residents. However, there are no contemporary, systematic reviews summarizing the latest available evidence. Our objective was to systematically review the published international evidence for geographical variations in prostate cancer indicators by residential rurality and disadvantage.

Methods: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed articles in English published from 1/1/1998 to 30/06/2018 using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Informit databases. Inclusion criteria were: population was adult prostate cancer patients; outcome measure was PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, access to and use of services, survival, and prostate cancer mortality with quantitative results by residential rurality and/or disadvantage. Studies were critically appraised using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results: Overall 169 studies met the inclusion criteria. Around 50% were assessed as high quality and 50% moderate. Men from disadvantaged areas had consistently lower prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and prostate cancer incidence, poorer survival, more advanced disease and a trend toward higher mortality. Although less consistent, predominant patterns by rurality were lower PSA testing, prostate cancer incidence and survival, but higher stage disease and mortality among rural men. Both geographical measures were associated with variations in access and use of prostate cancer-related services for low to high risk disease.

Conclusions: This review found substantial evidence that prostate cancer indicators varied by residential location across diverse populations and geographies. While wide variations in study design limited comparisons across studies, our review indicated that internationally, men living in disadvantaged areas, and to a lesser extent more rural areas, face a greater prostate cancer burden. This review highlights the need for a better understanding of the complex social, environmental, and behavioral reasons for these variations, recognizing that, while important, geographical access is not the only issue. Implementing research strategies to help identify these processes and to better understand the central role of disadvantage to variations in health outcome are crucial to inform the development of evidence-based targeted interventions.

Trends in survival after a diagnosis of heart failure in the United Kingdom 2000-2017: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To report reliable estimates of short term and long term survival rates for people with a diagnosis of heart failure and to assess trends over time by year of diagnosis, hospital admission, and socioeconomic group.

DESIGN

Population based cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care, United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care data for 55 959 patients aged 45 and overwith a new diagnosis of heart failure and 278 679 age and sex matched controls in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2017 and linked to inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics mortality data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Survival rates at one, five, and 10 years and cause of death for people with and without heart failure; and temporal trends in survival by year of diagnosis, hospital admission, and socioeconomic group.

RESULTS

Overall, one, five, and 10 year survival rates increased by 6.6% (from 74.2% in 2000 to 80.8% in 2016), 7.2% (from 41.0% in 2000 to 48.2% in 2012), and 6.4% (from 19.8% in 2000 to 26.2% in 2007), respectively. There were 30 906 deaths in the heart failure group over the study period. Heart failure was listed on the death certificate in 13 093 (42.4%) of these patients, and in 2237 (7.2%) it was the primary cause of death. Improvement in survival was greater for patients not requiring admission to hospital around the time of diagnosis (median difference 2.4 years; 5.3 v 2.9 years, P<0.001). There was a deprivation gap in median survival of 0.5 years between people who were least deprived and those who were most deprived (4.6 v 4.1 years, P<0.001) [corrected].

CONCLUSIONS

Survival after a diagnosis of heart failure has shown only modest improvement in the 21st century and lags behind other serious conditions, such as cancer. New strategies to achieve timely diagnosis and treatment initiation in primary care for all socioeconomic groups should be a priority for future research and policy.

Cancer prevention policy in the EU: Best practices are now well recognised; no reason for countries to lag behind

•

National Cancer Control Programmes (NCCPs) are key elements in cancer control.

•

NCCPs’ role in national cancer policies of EU countries has grown significantly.

•

Few quantitative assessments are available to evaluate success or failure of the implementation of NCCPs.

•

Research on methodologies to better assess the effectiveness of cancer prevention policies should be enhanced.

Through the application of science to public health practice, National Cancer Control Programmes provide the framework for the development of policies on cancer control, with the ultimate goal of reducing cancer morbidity and mortality, and improving quality of life. In the last decade, a substantial number of Member States in the European Union (EU) have formulated and/or updated their National Cancer Control Programmes, Plans or Strategies including primary prevention (health promotion and environmental protection), secondary prevention (screening and early detection), integrated care and organization of services, and palliative care as main elements. Although tobacco control and population-based screening policies are examples of best practices that are gradually being implemented in most of the EU countries, there are still large regional differences in cancer burden arising from the wide variety of social determinants and other epidemiological factors, along with gaps in the policy and practical articulation of cancer control within the health systems. On the other hand, few quantitative assessments are available with regard to evaluating the success or failure of the implementation of these programmes, especially in terms of reducing cancer incidence or mortality. An EU framework to better assess of the effectiveness of cancer prevention policies and the factors triggering shortfall in best practices implementation seems imperative.

Contributions of diseases and injuries to widening life expectancy inequalities in England from 2001 to 2016: a population-based analysis of vital registration data

BACKGROUND

Life expectancy inequalities in England have increased steadily since the 1980s. Our aim was to investigate how much deaths from different diseases and injuries and at different ages have contributed to this rise to inform policies that aim to reduce health inequalities.

METHODS

We used vital registration data from the Office for National Statistics on population and deaths in England, by underlying cause of death, from 2001 to 2016, stratified by sex, 5-year age group, and decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (based on the ranked scores of Lower Super Output Areas in England in 2015). We grouped the 7·65 million deaths by their assigned International Classification of Diseases (10th revision) codes to create categories of public health and clinical relevance. We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to obtain robust estimates of cause-specific death rates by sex, age group, year, and deprivation decile. We calculated life expectancy at birth by decile of deprivation and year using life-table methods. We calculated the contributions of deaths from each disease and injury, in each 5-year age group, to the life expectancy gap between the most deprived and affluent deciles using Arriaga's method.

FINDINGS

The life expectancy gap between the most affluent and most deprived deciles increased from 6·1 years (95% credible interval 5·9-6·2) in 2001 to 7·9 years (7·7-8·1) in 2016 in females and from 9·0 years (8·8-9·2) to 9·7 years (9·6-9·9) in males. Since 2011, the rise in female life expectancy has stalled in the third, fourth, and fifth most deprived deciles and has reversed in the two most deprived deciles, declining by 0·24 years (0·10-0·37) in the most deprived and 0·16 years (0·02-0·29) in the second-most deprived by 2016. Death rates from every disease and at every age were higher in deprived areas than in affluent ones in 2016. The largest contributors to life expectancy inequalities were deaths in children younger than 5 years (mostly neonatal deaths), respiratory diseases, ischaemic heart disease, and lung and digestive cancers in working ages, and dementias in older ages. From 2001 to 2016, the contributions to inequalities declined for deaths in children younger than 5 years, ischaemic heart disease (for both sexes), and stroke and intentional injuries (for men), but increased for most other causes.

INTERPRETATION

Recent trends in life expectancy in England have not only resulted in widened inequalities but the most deprived communities are now seeing no life expectancy gain. These inequalities are driven by a diverse group of diseases that can be effectively prevented and treated. Adoption of the principle of proportionate universalism to prevention and health and social care can postpone deaths into older ages for all communities and reduce life expectancy inequalities.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust.

Contributions of diseases and injuries to widening life expectancy inequalities in England from 2001 to 2016: a population-based analysis of vital registration data

BACKGROUND

Life expectancy inequalities in England have increased steadily since the 1980s. Our aim was to investigate how much deaths from different diseases and injuries and at different ages have contributed to this rise to inform policies that aim to reduce health inequalities.

METHODS

We used vital registration data from the Office for National Statistics on population and deaths in England, by underlying cause of death, from 2001 to 2016, stratified by sex, 5-year age group, and decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (based on the ranked scores of Lower Super Output Areas in England in 2015). We grouped the 7·65 million deaths by their assigned International Classification of Diseases (10th revision) codes to create categories of public health and clinical relevance. We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to obtain robust estimates of cause-specific death rates by sex, age group, year, and deprivation decile. We calculated life expectancy at birth by decile of deprivation and year using life-table methods. We calculated the contributions of deaths from each disease and injury, in each 5-year age group, to the life expectancy gap between the most deprived and affluent deciles using Arriaga's method.

FINDINGS

The life expectancy gap between the most affluent and most deprived deciles increased from 6·1 years (95% credible interval 5·9-6·2) in 2001 to 7·9 years (7·7-8·1) in 2016 in females and from 9·0 years (8·8-9·2) to 9·7 years (9·6-9·9) in males. Since 2011, the rise in female life expectancy has stalled in the third, fourth, and fifth most deprived deciles and has reversed in the two most deprived deciles, declining by 0·24 years (0·10-0·37) in the most deprived and 0·16 years (0·02-0·29) in the second-most deprived by 2016. Death rates from every disease and at every age were higher in deprived areas than in affluent ones in 2016. The largest contributors to life expectancy inequalities were deaths in children younger than 5 years (mostly neonatal deaths), respiratory diseases, ischaemic heart disease, and lung and digestive cancers in working ages, and dementias in older ages. From 2001 to 2016, the contributions to inequalities declined for deaths in children younger than 5 years, ischaemic heart disease (for both sexes), and stroke and intentional injuries (for men), but increased for most other causes.

INTERPRETATION

Recent trends in life expectancy in England have not only resulted in widened inequalities but the most deprived communities are now seeing no life expectancy gain. These inequalities are driven by a diverse group of diseases that can be effectively prevented and treated. Adoption of the principle of proportionate universalism to prevention and health and social care can postpone deaths into older ages for all communities and reduce life expectancy inequalities.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust.

Accountability in the NHS: the impact on cancer care

Accountability of service delivery is becoming increasingly complex and never has this been more apparent than in the field of Oncology. Cancer care has an unrivalled level of complexity not only in the heterogeneity of management of the disease itself but increasingly in the myriad of service providers, specialities, policymakers and regulatory bodies overseeing its delivery. The stepwise series of changes to NHS structures over recent decades has had an enormous impact on our ability to answer key questions which lie at the heart of accountability: who is making the key decisions about changes to cancer care delivery? What are these reforms achieving? How can they be influenced?

It is only through clear and transparent decision-making that we may have any hope of implementing, monitoring and influencing the effects of evidence-based change.

However, with growing complexity of service structures and an increasing number of bodies developing ambitious and complex strategies, in a context of resource restraint and system pressures, it has become very difficult to answer these questions clearly. This increasing lack of clarity and transparency around such fundamental questions may mean that, despite there being such a pressing need and apparent desire for accountability in cancer care, paradoxically we may actually be deviating further and further away from this. Perhaps it is time for less complexity and for the decision-makers to get back to some fundamental principles which clinicians have embraced in evidence-based medicine: what is being done and by whom? Is this change beneficial and if not how can we influence change?