The impact of age at diagnosis on socioeconomic inequalities in adult cancer survival in England

Epidemiologic trends of and factors associated with overall survival in patients with neuroendocrine tumors over the last two decades in the USA

Background

Updated epidemiological data of neuroendocrine tumors are currently lacking. Thus, we performed epidemiological and survival analyses on a large cohort of patients with neuroendocrine tumors and developed a new nomogram to predict survival.

Methods

This population-based study examined 112,256 patients with neuroendocrine tumors between 2000 and 2018 using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program.

Results

The age-adjusted incidence per 100,000 persons of neuroendocrine tumors increased from 4.90 in 2000 to 8.19 in 2018 (annual percentage change, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 3.13-3.67), with the most significant increases in grade 1, localized stage, and appendix neuroendocrine tumors. The age-adjusted mortality rate increased 3.1-fold from 2000 to 2018 (annual percentage change, 4.14; 95% confidence interval, 3.14-5.15). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year relative survival rates for all neuroendocrine tumors were 80.5%, 68.4%, and 63.5%, respectively. Multivariate analyses showed that male sex; older age; Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native populations; earlier year of diagnosis; lung neuroendocrine tumors; higher grades; and later stage were associated with a worse prognosis and that disease stage and grade were the most important risk factors for prognosis. Furthermore, we established a nomogram to predict the 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates, and its discrimination ability was better than that of the TNM classification.

Conclusions

The incidence, prevalence, and mortality rate of neuroendocrine tumors continued to increase over the last two decades. Additionally, the nomogram could accurately quantify the risk of death in patients with neuroendocrine tumors and had good clinical practicability.

Cancer survival analysis and spatial distribution during 2014-2016 in Shandong Province, China

We aimed to analyse cancer survival and its spatial distribution in Shandong Province. A total of 609,861 cancer cases from 2014 to 2016 were included in the analysis. Survival analysis was performed using strs in Stata. Spatial analysis was performed with GeoDa to determine measures of global and local spatial autocorrelation. Hotspot analysis was used to identify spatial clusters of high values (hotspots) and low values (cold spots) through ArcGIS. The 5-year relative survival rates were 37.85% for all cancers combined, 29.29% for males and 48.88% for females. After age standardisation, the survival rates were 34.47% for all cancers, 28.43% for males and 41.56% for females. Cancers with higher survival rates included thyroid (78.80%), breast (69.52%), uterus (64.51%) and bladder (62.54%) cancers. However, cancers with lower survival rates included pancreatic (11.34%), liver (13.19%), lung (18.39%), bone (19.71%), gallbladder (19.78%), oesophagus (24.52%), and stomach (28.85%) cancers and leukaemia (26.30%). Cancer survival rates in urban areas (37.53%) were higher than those in rural areas (32.83%). From the geographic distribution of cancer survival, we observed that the survival rate displayed a downward trend from east to west and from north to south. The hotspot analysis revealed that some counties of Qingdao, Jinan, Zibo, Dongying and Yantai cities were hotspots, whereas almost all counties of Linyi city and some counties of Weifang, Heze, Rizhao, and Dezhou cities were cold spots. In conclusion, the cancer survival rate in Shandong is still lower than that in China overall. The early diagnosis and treatment of lung and digestive tract cancers need to be further strengthened. Nevertheless, our results reflect a critical first step in obtaining and reporting accurate and reliable estimates of survival in Shandong.

Incidence and survival of neuroendocrine neoplasms in China with comparison to the United States

BACKGROUND

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are rare tumors characterized by variable biology and delayed diagnosis. However, the nationwide epidemiology of NENs has never been reported in China. We aimed to estimate the incidence and survival statistics of NENs in China, in comparison to those in the United States during the same period.

METHODS

Based on the data from 246 population-based cancer registries covering 272.5 million people of China, we calculated age-specific incidence on NENs in 2017 and multiplied by corresponding national population to estimate the nationwide incidence in China. The data of 22 population-based cancer registries were used to estimate the trends of NENs incidence from 2000 to 2017 through the Joinpoint regression model. We used the cohort approach to analyze the 5-year age-standardized relative survival by sex, age group, and urban-rural area between 2008 and 2013, based on data from 176 high-quality cancer registries. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) 18 program to estimate the comparable incidence and survival of NENs in the United States.

RESULTS

The overall age-standardized rate (ASR) of NENs incidence was lower in China (1.14 per 100,000) than in the United States (6.26 per 100,000). The most common primary sites were lungs, pancreas, stomach, and rectum in China. The ASRs of NENs incidence increased by 9.8% and 3.6% per year in China and the United States, respectively. The overall 5-year relative survival in China (36.2%) was lower than in the United States (63.9%). The 5-year relative survival was higher for female patients than male patients, and was higher in urban areas than in rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

The disparities in burden of NENs persist across sex, area, age group, and site in China and the United States. These findings may provide a scientific basis on prevention and control of NENs in the two countries.

The survival of esophageal cancer by subtype in China with comparison to the United States

Adenocarcinoma (AC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are the main subtypes of esophageal cancer (EC), but nationwide survival of both EC subtypes has never been reported in China. This study aimed to estimate the survival trends of EC by subtype in China and compare them with those in the USA for the same period. We used data from 64 Chinese cancer registries, which included EC patients diagnosed during 2008 and 2015 and followed up until 31st December 2017. The 5-year age-standardized relative survival by subtype, sex, age group, and urban or rural area between 2008 and 2017 were analyzed. We stratified survival estimates by calendar period (2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-14, and 2015-17). Data from the SEER 18 programme were calculated to estimate the survival of EC in the USA. A further comparison between the survivals in areas covered and not covered by population-based endoscopic screening programmes in China was conducted. A total of 129 962 records were included in the survival analyses. Results revealed that age-standardised 5-year relative survivals for AC and SCC increased in both China and USA from 2008 to 2017. In 2015-17, 5-year survival from both subtypes in China was better than the USA (SCC: 36.9% vs 18.5%, AC: 34.8% vs 22.3%). The survival for both subtypes was significantly higher in screening areas than in non-screening areas in China (SCC: 40.6% vs 32.8%; AC: 43.0% vs 31.3%). A survival gap in EC by subtype exists between China and USA. Our results may support the beneficial effect of population-based endoscopic screening for survival, and may be poised to inform national policy-making in both countries. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Cancer Survival in Adults in Spain: A Population-Based Study of the Spanish Network of Cancer Registries (REDECAN)

Simple Summary

We studied cancer survival and its trends in adult patients in Spain. We included more than 600,000 patients with primary cancer diagnosed during 2002–2013 and followed them up to 2015. The study provides cancer survival estimates up to five years after diagnosis by sex and age for 29 cancer groups. We found survival improvements for most cancer groups from 2002–2007 to 2008–2013, although with differences by age, being greater for patients younger than 75 years than for older patients. The persistent poor prognosis for some cancers emphasizes the need to reinforce actions along the cancer continuum, from primary prevention to early diagnosis, optimal treatment, and supportive care. Further examination of possible sociodemographic inequalities is warranted.

Abstract

The assessment of cancer survival at the population level is essential for monitoring progress in cancer control. We aimed to assess cancer survival and its trends in adults in Spain. Individual records of 601,250 adults with primary cancer diagnosed during 2002–2013 and followed up to 2015 were included from 13 population-based cancer registries. We estimated net survival up to five years after diagnosis and analyzed absolute changes between 2002–2007 and 2008–2013. Estimates were age-standardized. Analyses were performed for 29 cancer groups, by age and sex. Overall, age-standardized five-year net survival was higher in women (61.7%, 95% CI 61.4–62.1%) than in men (55.3%, 95% CI 55.0–55.6%), and ranged by cancer from 7.2% (pancreas) to 89.6% (prostate) in men, and from 10.0% (pancreas) to 93.1% (thyroid) in women in the last period. Survival declined with age, showing different patterns by cancer. Between both periods, age-standardized five-year net survival increased overall by 3.3% (95% CI 3.0–3.7%) in men and 2.5% (95% CI 2.0–3.0%) in women, and for most cancer groups. Improvements were greater in patients younger than 75 years than in older patients. Chronic myeloid leukemia and myeloma showed the largest increases. Among the most common malignancies, the greatest absolute increases in survival were observed for colon (5.0%, 95% CI 4.0–6.0%) and rectal cancers (4.5%, 95% CI 3.2–5.9%). Survival improved even for some cancers with poor prognosis (pancreas, esophagus, lung, liver, and brain cancer). Further investigation of possible sociodemographic inequalities is warranted. This study contributes to the evaluation of cancer control and health services’ effectiveness.

Socioeconomic disparities in cancer incidence and mortality in England and the impact of age-at-diagnosis on cancer mortality

Background

We identify socioeconomic disparities by region in cancer morbidity and mortality in England for all-cancer and type-specific cancers, and use incidence data to quantify the impact of cancer diagnosis delays on cancer deaths between 2001–2016.

Methods and findings

We obtain population cancer morbidity and mortality rates at various age, year, gender, deprivation, and region levels based on a Bayesian approach. A significant increase in type-specific cancer deaths, which can also vary among regions, is shown as a result of delay in cancer diagnoses. Our analysis suggests increase of 7.75% (7.42% to 8.25%) in female lung cancer mortality in London, as an impact of 12-month delay in cancer diagnosis, and a 3.39% (3.29% to 3.48%) increase in male lung cancer mortality across all regions. The same delay can cause a 23.56% (23.09% to 24.30%) increase in male bowel cancer mortality. Furthermore, for all-cancer mortality, the highest increase in deprivation gap happened in the East Midlands, from 199 (186 to 212) in 2001, to 239 (224 to 252) in 2016 for males, and from 114 (107 to 121) to 163 (155 to 171) for females. Also, for female lung cancer, the deprivation gap has widened with the highest change in the North West, e.g. for incidence from 180 (172 to 188) to 272 (261 to 282), whereas it has narrowed for prostate cancer incidence with the biggest reduction in the South West from 165 (139 to 190) in 2001 to 95 (72 to 117) in 2016.

Conclusions

The analysis reveals considerable disparities in all-cancer and some type-specific cancers with respect to socioeconomic status. Furthermore, a significant increase in cancer deaths is shown as a result of delays in cancer diagnoses which can be linked to concerns about the effect of delay in cancer screening and diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health interventions at regional and deprivation level can contribute to prevention of cancer deaths.

Age disparities in lung cancer survival in New Zealand: The role of patient and clinical factors

OBJECTIVE

Age is an important prognostic factor for lung cancer. However, no studies have investigated the age difference in lung cancer survival per se. We, therefore, described the role of patient-related and clinical factors on the age pattern in lung cancer excess mortality hazard by stage at diagnosis in New Zealand.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We extracted 22 487 new lung cancer cases aged 50-99 (median age = 71, 47.1 % females) diagnosed between 1 January 2006 and 31 July 2017 from the New Zealand population-based cancer registry and followed up to December 2019. We modelled the effect of age at diagnosis, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, comorbidity, and emergency presentation on the excess mortality hazard by stage at diagnosis, and we derived corresponding lung cancer net survival.

RESULTS

The age difference in net survival was particularly marked for localised and regional lung cancers, with a sharp decline in survival from the age of 70. No identified factors influenced age disparities in patients with localised cancer. However, for other stages, females had a greater difference in survival between middle-age and older-age than males. Comorbidity and emergency presentation played a minor role. Ethnicity and deprivation did not influence age disparities in lung cancer survival.

CONCLUSION

Sex and stage at diagnosis were the most important factors of age disparities in lung cancer survival in New Zealand.

Age disparities in stage-specific colon cancer survival across seven countries: An International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership SURVMARK-2 population-based study

We sought to understand the role of stage at diagnosis in observed age disparities in colon cancer survival among people aged 50 to 99 years using population-based cancer registry data from seven high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. We used colon cancer incidence data for the period 2010 to 2014. We estimated the 3-year net survival, as well as the 3-year net survival conditional on surviving at least 6 months and 1 year after diagnosis, by country and stage at diagnosis (categorised as localised, regional or distant) using flexible parametric excess hazard regression models. In all countries, increasing age was associated with lower net survival. For example, 3-year net survival (95% confidence interval) was 81% (80-82) for 50 to 64 year olds and 58% (56-60) for 85 to 99 year olds in Australia, and 74% (73-74) and 39% (39-40) in the United Kingdom, respectively. Those with distant stage colon cancer had the largest difference in colon cancer survival between the youngest and the oldest patients. Excess mortality for the oldest patients with localised or regional cancers was observed during the first 6 months after diagnosis. Older patients diagnosed with localised (and in some countries regional) stage colon cancer who survived 6 months after diagnosis experienced the same survival as their younger counterparts. Further studies examining other prognostic clinical factors such as comorbidities and treatment, and socioeconomic factors are warranted to gain further understanding of the age disparities in colon cancer survival.

Patterns of age disparities in colon and lung cancer survival: a systematic narrative literature review

OBJECTIVES

To identify patterns of age disparities in cancer survival, using colon and lung cancer as exemplars.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science through 18 December 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We retained all original articles published in English including patients with colon or lung cancer. Eligible studies were required to be population-based, report survival across several age groups (of which at least one was over the age of 65) and at least one other characteristic (eg, sex, treatment).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies against selected evaluation domains from the QUIPS tool, and items concerning statistical reporting. We evaluated age disparities using the absolute difference in survival or mortality rates between the middle-aged group and the oldest age group, or by describing survival curves.

RESULTS

Out of 3047 references, we retained 59 studies (20 for colon, 34 for lung and 5 for both sites). Regardless of the cancer site, the included studies were highly heterogeneous and often of poor quality. The magnitude of age disparities in survival varied greatly by sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, stage at diagnosis, cancer site, and morphology, the number of nodes examined and treatment strategy. Although results were inconsistent for most characteristics, we consistently observed greater age disparities for women with lung cancer compared with men. Also, age disparities increased with more advanced stages for colon cancer and decreased with more advanced stages for lung cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Although age is one of the most important prognostic factors in cancer survival, age disparities in colon and lung cancer survival have so far been understudied in population-based research. Further studies are needed to better understand age disparities in colon and lung cancer survival.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020151402.

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.

The effect of socioeconomic status on age at diagnosis and overall survival in patients with intracranial meningioma

BACKGROUND

Intracranial meningiomas are the most common primary tumors of the central nervous system. How socioeconomic status (SES) impacts treatment access and outcomes for brain tumor subtypes is an emerging area of research. Few studies have examined the relationship between SES and meningioma survival and management with reference to relevant clinical factors, including age at diagnosis. We studied the independent effects of SES on receiving surgery and survival probability in patients with intracranial meningioma.

METHODS

54,282 patients diagnosed with intracranial meningioma between 2003 and 2012 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program at the National Cancer Institute database were included. Patient SES was divided into tertiles. Patient age groups included 'older' (>65, the median patient age) and 'younger'. Multivariable linear regression and Cox proportional hazards model were used with SAS v9.4. Results were adjusted for race, sex, and tumor grade. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed according to SES tertiles and age groups.

RESULTS

Meningioma prevalence increased with higher SES tertile. Higher SES tertile was also associated with younger age at diagnosis (OR = 0.890, p < 0.05), an increased likelihood of undergoing gross total resection (GTR) (OR = 1.112, p < 0.05), and a trend toward greater 5-year survival probability (HR = 1.773, p = 0.0531). Survival probability correlated with younger age at diagnosis (HR = 2.597, p < 0.001), but not with GTR receipt.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this national longitudinal study on patients with meningioma suggest that SES affects age at diagnosis and treatment access for intracranial meningiomas patients. Further studies are required to understand and address the mechanisms underlying these disparities.

Differences in cancer survival by area-level socio-economic disadvantage: A population-based study using cancer registry data

Despite overall improvements in cancer survival due to earlier diagnosis and better treatment, socio-economically disadvantaged people have lower cancer survival than more advantaged people. We aimed to examine differences in cancer survival by area-level socio-economic disadvantage in Victoria, Australia and assess whether these inequalities varied by year of diagnosis, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis and sex. Cases diagnosed with a first primary cancer in 2001–2015 were identified using the Victorian Cancer Registry and followed to the end of 2016. Five-year net survival and the excess risk of death due to a cancer diagnosis were estimated. People living in more disadvantaged areas had lower five-year survival than residents of less disadvantaged regions for 21 of 29 cancer types: head and neck, oesophagus, stomach, colorectum, anus/anal canal, liver, gallbladder/biliary tract, pancreas, lung, melanoma, connective/soft tissue, female breast, ovary, prostate, kidney, bladder, brain and central nervous system, unknown primary, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma and leukemia. The observed lower survival in more deprived regions persisted over time, except head and neck cancer, for which the gap in survival has widened. Socio-economic inequalities in survival decreased with increasing age at diagnosis for cancers of connective/soft tissue, bladder and unknown primary. For colorectal cancer, the observed survival disadvantage in lower socio-economic regions was greater for men than for women, while for brain and central nervous system tumours, it was larger for women. Cancer survival is generally lower for residents of more socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Identifying the underlying reasons for these inequalities is important and may help to identify effective interventions to increase survival for underprivileged cancer patients.

Understanding the impact of socioeconomic differences in colorectal cancer survival: potential gain in life-years

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer prognosis varies substantially with socioeconomic status. We investigated differences in life expectancy between socioeconomic groups and estimated the potential gain in life-years if cancer-related survival differences could be eliminated.

METHODS

This population-based study included 470,000 individuals diagnosed with colon and rectal cancers between 1998 and 2013 in England. Using flexible parametric survival models, we obtained a range of life expectancy measures by deprivation status. The number of life-years that could be gained if differences in cancer-related survival between the least and most deprived groups were removed was also estimated.

RESULTS

We observed up to 10% points differences in 5-year relative survival between the least and most deprived. If these differences had been eliminated for colon and rectal cancers diagnosed in 2013 then almost 8231 and 7295 life-years would have been gained respectively. This results for instance in more than 1-year gain for each colon cancer male patient in the most deprived group on average. Cancer-related differences are more profound earlier on, as conditioning on 1-year survival the main reason for socioeconomic differences were factors other than cancer.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of policies to eliminate socioeconomic differences in cancer survival as in this way many life-years could be gained.

Rational targeting of population groups and residential areas for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Sociodemographic and spatial disparities in incidence and mortality burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) are important to consider in the implementation of population screening, in order to achieve expected benefit and not increase health inequities. Analytic methods should be adapted to provide rational support for targeted interventions.

METHODS

CRC incidence rates by tumor stage (I-IV) and location (colon vs. rectum) were analyzed for the time period 2008-2016 within a screening-relevant age interval of 55-74 years for the population of South and West Sweden, where screening is planned for. The study population was stratified by sex, country of birth, educational level (for Swedish-born citizens) and residential area. We also estimated disparities in excess mortality from CRC across groups of patients accordant to relevant population groups.

RESULTS

The analyses were based on 8961 patients with a first CRC diagnosis. There were marked socioeconomic gradients in the stage II-IV CRC incidence rates among Swedish-born men and women. Compared to men with high educational level, the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of stage II, III, and IV CRC in men with low educational level were 1.38 (95% confidence interval 1.18, 1.62), 1.09 (0.95, 1.26), and 1.18 (1.02, 1.37), respectively. In women, the corresponding figures were 1.26 (1.06, 1.51), 1.19 (1.01, 1.39), and 1.45 (1.20, 1.80). The groups of patients with low educational level showed relatively high excess mortality burdens from CRC.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analytic approach provided rational support for targeted intervention when implementing CRC screening, aiming at optimizing participation in groups with low educational level.

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.

Changing cancer survival in China during 2003-15: a pooled analysis of 17 population-based cancer registries

BACKGROUND

From 2003 to 2005, standardised 5-year cancer survival in China was much lower than in developed countries and varied substantially by geographical area. Monitoring population-level cancer survival is crucial to the understanding of the overall effectiveness of cancer care. We therefore aimed to investigate survival statistics for people with cancer in China between 2003 and 2015.

METHODS

We used population-based data from 17 cancer registries in China. Data for the study population was submitted by the end of July 31, 2016, with follow-up data on vital status obtained on Dec 31, 2015. We used anonymised, individual cancer registration records of patients (aged 0-99 years) diagnosed with primary, invasive cancers from 2003 to 2013. Patients eligible for inclusion had data for demographic characteristics, date of diagnosis, anatomical site, morphology, behaviour code, vital status, and last date of contact. We analysed 5-year relative survival by sex, age, and geographical area, for all cancers combined and 26 different cancer types, between 2003 and 2015. We stratified survival estimates by calendar period (2003-05, 2006-08, 2009-11, and 2012-15).

FINDINGS

There were 678 842 records of patients with invasive cancer who were diagnosed between 2003 and 2013. Of these records, 659 732 (97·2%) were eligible for inclusion in the final analyses. From 2003-05 to 2012-15, age-standardised 5-year relative survival increased substantially for all cancers combined, for both male and female patients, from 30·9% (95% CI 30·6-31·2) to 40·5% (40·3-40·7). Age-standardised 5-year relative survival also increased for most cancer types, including cancers of the uterus (average change per calendar period 5·5% [95% CI 2·5-8·5]), thyroid (5·4% [3·2-7·6]), cervix (4·5% [2·9-6·2]), and bone (3·2% [2·1-4·4]). In 2012-15, age-standardised 5-year survival for all patients with cancer was higher in urban areas (46·7%, 95% CI 46·5-47·0) than in rural areas (33·6%, 33·3-33·9), except for patients with oesophageal or cervical cancer; but improvements in survival were greater for patients residing in rural areas than in urban areas. Relative survival decreased with increasing age. The increasing trends in survival were consistent with the upward trends of medical expenditure of the country during the period studied.

INTERPRETATION

There was a marked overall increase in cancer survival from 2003 to 2015 in the population covered by these cancer registries in China, possibly reflecting advances in the quality of cancer care in these areas. The survival gap between urban and rural areas narrowed over time, although geographical differences in cancer survival remained. Insight into these trends will help prioritise areas that need increased cancer care.

FUNDING

National Key R&D Program of China, PUMC Youth Fund and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, and Major State Basic Innovation Program of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

Socioeconomic deprivation worsens the outcomes of Italian women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer and decreases the possibility of receiving standard care

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic factors influence access to cancer care and survival. This study investigated the role of socioeconomic status on the risk of breast cancer recurrence and on the delivery of appropriate cancer care (sentinel lymph node biopsy and breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy), by patients' age and hormone receptor status.

METHODS

3,462 breast cancer cases diagnosed in 2003-2005 were selected from 7 Italian cancer registries and assigned to a socioeconomic tertile on the basis of the deprivation index of their census tract. Multivariable models were applied to assess the delivery of sentinel lymph node biopsy and of breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy within socioeconomic tertiles.

RESULTS

In the 1,893 women younger than 65 years, the 5-year risk of recurrence was higher in the most deprived group than in the least deprived, but this difference was not significant (16.4% vs. 12.9%, log-rank p=0.08); no difference was seen in women ≥65 years. Among the 2,024 women with hormone receptor-positive cancer, the 5-year risk was significantly higher in the most deprived group than in the least deprived one (13.0% vs. 8.9%, p=0.04); no difference was seen in cases of hormone receptor-negative cancer. The most deprived women were less likely than the least deprived women to receive sentinel lymph node biopsy (adjusted odds ratio (ORa), 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) and to undergo breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy (ORa=0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86). Conclusions: Socioeconomic inequalities affect the risk of recurrence, among patients with hormone receptor-positive cancer, and the opportunity to receive standard care.

Health Equity Indicators for the English NHS: a longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level

Background

Inequalities in health-care access and outcomes raise concerns about quality of care and justice, and the NHS has a statutory duty to consider reducing them.

Objectives

The objectives were to (1) develop indicators of socioeconomic inequality in health-care access and outcomes at different stages of the patient pathway; (2) develop methods for monitoring local NHS equity performance in tackling socioeconomic health-care inequalities; (3) track the evolution of socioeconomic health-care inequalities in the 2000s; and (4) develop ‘equity dashboards’ for communicating equity findings to decision-makers in a clear and concise format.

Design

Longitudinal whole-population study at the small-area level.

Setting

England from 2001/2 to 2011/12.

Participants

A total of 32,482 small-area neighbourhoods (lower-layer super output areas) of approximately 1500 people.

Main outcome measures

Slope index of inequality gaps between the most and least deprived neighbourhoods in England, adjusted for need or risk, for (1) patients per family doctor, (2) primary care quality, (3) inpatient hospital waiting time, (4) emergency hospitalisation for chronic ambulatory care-sensitive conditions, (5) repeat emergency hospitalisation in the same year, (6) dying in hospital, (7) mortality amenable to health care and (8) overall mortality.

Data sources

Practice-level workforce data from the general practice census (indicator 1), practice-level Quality and Outcomes Framework data (indicator 2), inpatient hospital data from Hospital Episode Statistics (indicators 3–6) and mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (indicators 6–8).

Results

Between 2004/5 and 2011/12, more deprived neighbourhoods gained larger absolute improvements on all indicators except waiting time, repeat hospitalisation and dying in hospital. In 2011/12, there was little measurable inequality in primary care supply and quality, but inequality was associated with 171,119 preventable hospitalisations and 41,123 deaths amenable to health care. In 2011/12, > 20% of Clinical Commissioning Groups performed statistically significantly better or worse than the England equity benchmark.

Limitations

General practitioner supply is a limited measure of primary care access, need in deprived neighbourhoods may be underestimated because of a lack of data on multimorbidity, and the quality and outcomes indicators capture only one aspect of primary care quality. Health-care outcomes are adjusted for age and sex but not for other risk factors that contribute to unequal health-care outcomes and may be outside the control of the NHS, so they overestimate the extent of inequality for which the NHS can reasonably be held responsible.

Conclusions

NHS actions can have a measurable impact on socioeconomic inequality in both health-care access and outcomes. Reducing inequality in health-care outcomes is more challenging than reducing inequality of access to health care. Local health-care equity monitoring against a national benchmark can be performed using any administrative geography comprising ≥ 100,000 people.

Future work

Exploration of quality improvement lessons from local areas performing well and badly on health-care equity, improved methods including better measures of need and risk and measures of health-care inequality over the life-course, and monitoring of other dimensions of equity. These indicators can also be used to evaluate the health-care equity impacts of interventions and make international health-care equity comparisons.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The double-edge role of B cells in mediating antitumor T-cell immunity: Pharmacological strategies for cancer immunotherapy

Emerging evidence reveals the controversial role of B cells in antitumor immunity, but the underlying mechanisms have to be explored. Three latest articles published in the issue 521 of Nature in 2015 reconfirmed the puzzling topic and put forward some explanations of how B cells regulate antitumor T-cell responses both positively and negatively. This paper attempts to demonstrate that different B-cell subpopulations have distinct immunological properties and that they are involved in either antitumor responses or immunosuppression. Recent studies supporting the positive and negative roles of B cells in tumor development were summarized comprehensively. Several specific B-cell subpopulations, such as IgG(+), IgA(+), IL-10(+), and regulatory B cells, were described in detail. The mechanisms underlying the controversial B-cell effects were mainly attributed to different B-cell subpopulations, different B-cell-derived cytokines, direct B cell-T cell interaction, different cancer categories, and different malignant stages, and the immunological interaction between B cells and T cells is mediated by dendritic cells. Promising B-cell-based antitumor strategies were proposed and novel B-cell regulators were summarized to present interesting therapeutic targets. Future investigations are needed to make sure that B-cell-based pharmacological strategies benefit cancer immunotherapy substantially.

Trends in ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival, New Zealand, 1991-2004

Improvements in cancer survival may be distributed inequitably throughout populations and across time. We assessed trends in cancer survival inequalities in New Zealand by ethnic and income group. 126,477 people diagnosed with cancer between 1991 and 2004, followed-up to 2006, were included. First, inequalities pooled over time were measured with excess mortality rate ratios (EMRRs). Second, interpretation of changes in inequalities over time can differ depending on whether one uses EMRRs, excess mortality rate differences (EMRD) or absolute differences in relative survival risks (RSRD); we estimated all three by cancer-site and (for EMRRs only) pooled across all sites. We found that pooled over time and all sites, Māori had an EMRR of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.24-1.34) compared to non-Māori. The low compared to high-income EMRR was 1.12 (95% CI, 1.09-1.15). Pooled over cancers, there was no change in the ethnic EMRR over time but the income EMRR increased by 9% per decade (1-17%). Changes over time in site-specific inequalities were imprecisely measured, but the direction of change was usually consistent across EMRRs, EMRDs and RSRDs. There were persistent ethnic inequalities in cancer survival over time, and slower improvements for low-income people.