Prognostic impact of education level of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer enrolled in clinical trials

Investigating socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer diagnosis, treatment and mortality: an Italian cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the most lethal cancers worldwide and patient clinical outcomes seem influenced by their socioeconomic position (SEP). Since little has been investigated on this topic in the Italian context, our aim was to investigate the role of SEP in the care pathway of lung cancer patients in terms of diagnosis, treatment and mortality.

METHODS

This observational retrospective cohort study included patients discharged in the Lazio Region with a lung cancer diagnosis between 2014 and 2017. In the main analysis, educational level was used as SEP measure. Multivariate models, adjusted for demographic and clinical variables, were applied to evaluate the association between SEP and study outcomes, stratified for metastatic (M) and non-metastatic (NM) cancer. We defined a diagnosis as 'delayed' when patients received their initial cancer diagnosis after an emergency department admission. Access to advanced lung cancer treatments (high-cost, novel and innovative treatments) and mortality were investigated within the 24-month period post-diagnosis. Moreover, two additional indicators of SEP were examined in the sensitivity analysis: one focusing on area deprivation and the other on income-based exemption.

RESULTS

A total of 13,251 patients were identified (37.3% with metastasis). The majority were males (> 60%) and over half were older than 70 years. The distribution of SEP levels among patients was as follow: 31% low, 29% medium-low, 32% medium-high and 7% high. As SEP increased, the risks of receiving a delayed diagnosis ((high vs low: M: OR = 0.29 (0.23-0.38), NM: OR = 0.20 (0.16-0.25)) and of mortality ((high vs low M: OR = 0.77 (0.68-0.88) and NM: 0.61 (0.54-0.69)) decreased. Access to advanced lung cancer treatments increased in accordance with SEP only in the M cohort (high vs low: M: OR = 1.57 (1.18-2.09)). The primary findings were corroborated by sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlighted the need of public health preventive and educational programs in Italy, a country where the care pathway of lung cancer patients, especially in terms of diagnosis and mortality, appears to be negatively affected by SEP level.

Effect of Marital Status on the Survival of Patients With Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Population-Based, Propensity-Matched Study

Background

Marital status has been reported as an independent prognostic factor in various types of malignancies. However, the association between marital status and outcomes of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) has not been fully explored. To this end, we aimed to investigate the effect of marital status on survival of AGE patients.

Methods

The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2010–2015) was used to extract eligible patients with Siewert type II AEG. Meanwhile, propensity score matching was performed to match 1576 unmarried patients with 1576 married patients. Kaplan–Meier method with log-rank test was used to plot survival curves, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were adopted to investigate the association of marital status with overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in AEG patients before and after matching.

Results

Multivariate analysis in the unmatched cohort revealed that marital status was an independent prognostic factor in patients with Siewert type II AEG. Unmarried patients had poorer OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12–1.29, P < .001) and poorer CSS (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10–1.29, P < .001) than married patients before matching. Additionally, widowed patients had the poorest OS (HR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.11–1.44, P < .001) and CSS (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.12–1.48, P < .001) compared with married patients. Furthermore, unmarried status remained as an independent prognostic for both OS (HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10–1.31, P < .001) and CSS (HR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.08–1.30, P < .001) in 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis. Subgroup analysis further revealed that OS and CSS rates were significantly higher in married patients than unmarried ones in most subgroups stratified by different variables.

Conclusions

This population-based study identified that marital status was an independent prognostic indicator for AEG patients. Married AEG patients had better prognosis than their unmarried counterparts.

Health Disparities in Environmental and Occupational Lung Disease

Pulmonary health disparities disproportionately impact disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. This article focuses on disparities in disease prevalence, morbidity, and mortality for asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumoconiosis, and lung cancer. Disparities are categorized by race, age, sex, socioeconomic status, and geographic region. Each category highlights differences in risk factors for the development and severity of lung disease. Risk factors include social, behavioral, economic, and biologic determinants of health (occupational/environmental exposures, psychosocial stressors, smoking, health literacy, health care provider bias, and health care access). Many of these risk factors are complex and inter-related; strategies proposed to decrease disparities require multilevel approaches.

Association of Race, Socioeconomic Factors, and Treatment Characteristics With Overall Survival in Patients With Limited-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer

IMPORTANCE

It has been established that disparities in race and socioeconomic status are associated with outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer. However, it remains unknown whether this extends to stage I, II, or III small cell lung cancer (SCLC), or limited-stage SCLC (L-SCLC).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the associations of race, socioeconomic factors, and treatment characteristics with survival among patients with L-SCLC.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Demographic information for patients with L-SCLC diagnosed between 2004 and 2014 was obtained from the National Cancer Database. The follow-up end point is death or last follow-up (date of last contact). Patients were divided into 5 mutually exclusive cohorts by race. Data analysis was performed in October 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate univariable and multivariable models. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess the associations of race and socioeconomic factors with risk-adjusted outcomes. Overall survival between groups was depicted by Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Of 72 409 patients analyzed (median [range] age, 67.0 [23.0-90.0] years), 40 289 (55.6%) were women. The distribution of disease stage was 10 619 patients (14.7%) with stage I disease, 7689 patients (10.6%) with stage II disease, and 54 101 patients (74.7%) with stage III disease. The median (range) duration of follow-up was 8.2 (2.4-15.8) months. Compared with White patients, the hazard of death decreased to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.95; P < .001) for African American patients and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.77-0.91; P < .001) for Asian patients. The difference in median survival among different racial groups was significant only among those with stage III SCLC. Other factors associated with better survival were female sex, high income, high education, private insurance, diagnostic confirmation by positive cytological analysis, increase in number of sampled regional lymph nodes, and earlier stage at diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This analysis highlights disparities in race and socioeconomic factors associated with outcomes of L-SCLC. Racial minorities, including African American and Asian patients, have better survival than White patients for L-SCLC after adjustment for sociodemographic factors.

Socioeconomic disparity trends in diagnostic imaging, treatments, and survival for non-small cell lung cancer 2007-2016

Socioeconomic status (SES) has led to treatment and survival disparities; however, limited data exist for non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study investigates the impact of SES on NSCLC diagnostic imaging, treatment, and overall survival (OS), and describes temporal disparity trends. The Ontario Cancer Registry was used to identify NSCLC patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2016. Through linkage to administrative datasets, patients’ demographics, imaging, treatment, and survival were obtained. Based on median household neighborhood income, the Ontario population was divided into five income quintiles (Q1‐Q5; Q1 = lowest income). Multivariable regressions assessed SES association with OS, imaging, treatment receipt, and treatment delay, and their interaction with year of diagnosis to understand temporal trends. Endpoints were adjusted for demographics, stage and comorbidities, along with treatments and imaging for OS. A total of 50 542 patients were identified. Higher SES patients (Q5 vs. Q1) showed improved 5‐year OS (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87‐0.92; P < .0001) and underwent greater magnetic resonance imaging head (stages IA‐IV; odds ratio [OR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16‐1.32; P < .0001), lung resection (IA‐IIIA; OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.43‐1.74; P < .0001), platinum‐based vinorelbine adjuvant chemotherapy (IB‐IIIA; OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.39‐1.92; P < .0001), palliative radiation (IV; OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05‐1.25; P = .023), and intravenous chemotherapy (IV; OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.32‐1.60; P < .0001). Lower SES patients underwent greater thoracic radiation (IA‐IIIB; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79‐0.94; P = .0003). Across 2007‐2016, socioeconomic disparities remain largely unchanged (interaction P > .05) despite widening income inequality.

Risks and burden of lung cancer incidence for residential petrochemical industrial complexes: A meta-analysis and application

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world. Higher incidence of lung cancer may be associated with residential proximity to a petrochemical industrial complex (PIC) due to exposure to various carcinogens, although results from previous epidemiologic studies remain inconclusive. Because disease burden due to residential inequality is a public health and societal concern, this study analyzed published data to estimate lung cancer incidence in association with residential proximity to PICs.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis on selected epidemiologic studies that met the following criteria: lung cancer incidence was coded by the International Classification of Diseases; exposure groups were clearly defined as residents living near PICs; and confidence intervals were available or calculable from original articles. We further applied a population attributable factor (PAF) method to estimate disease burden attributable to living near PICs in 22 European Union (EU) countries.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis included six studies with a total of 466,066 residents living near PICs in six countries. Residents living near PICs had a 19% higher risk of lung cancer compared to those who lived farther away (95% CI = 1.06-1.32). By sex, risks were higher and more significant for females (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.09-1.54; P = 0.004) than males (RR = 1.12; 95% CI = 0.95-1.33; P = 0.173). By location, only groups in Europe had a significantly greater risk of lung cancer with exposure to PICs (95% CI = 1.03-1.33; P = 0.019), although groups in other locations showed similar trends. By bona fide observation, observation of residents for at least seven years provided sufficient latency to estimate risk (RR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.17-1.34; P < 0.001). Regarding burden of lung cancer in 22 EU countries, 494 males and 478 females were attributed to living in the vicinity of a PIC annually.

CONCLUSIONS

Lung cancer incidence is significantly higher in individuals living near PICs. This result provides strong epidemiologic evidence for further policy to regulate potential pollutants near PICs.

HIGHLIGHTS

Higher incident rates of lung cancer for residents living close to petrochemical industry complex.

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.

Socio-demographic, Clinical, and Genetic Determinants of Quality of Life in Lung Cancer Patients

Patient reported health-related quality of life (QOL) is a major component of the overall well-being of cancer patients, with links to prognosis. In 6,420 lung cancer patients, we identified patient characteristics and genetic determinants of QOL. Patient responses from the SF-12 questionnaire was used to calculate normalized Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores. Further, we analyzed 218 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the p38 MAPK signaling pathway, a key mediator of response to cellular and environmental stress, as genetic determinants of QOL in a subset of the study population (N = 641). Trends among demographic factors for mean PCS and MCS included smoking status (PCS P_trend < 0.001, MCS P_trend < 0.001) and education (PCS P_trend < 0.001, MCS P_trend < 0.001). Similar relationships were seen for MCS. The homozygous rare genotype of MEF2B: rs2040562 showed an increased risk of a poor MCS (OR: 3.06, 95% CI: 1.05–8.92, P = 0.041). Finally, survival analysis showed that a low PCS or a MCS was associated with increased risks of five-year mortality (HR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.51–1.77, HR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.16–1.32, respectively) and there was a significant reduction in median survival time (P_log-rank < 0.001). These findings suggest that multiple factors contribute to QOL in lung cancer patients, and baseline QOL can impact survival.

The impact of comorbidity on cancer survival: a review

Background

A number of studies have shown poorer survival among cancer patients with comorbidity. Several mechanisms may underlie this finding. In this review we summarize the current literature on the association between patient comorbidity and cancer prognosis. Prognostic factors examined include tumor biology, diagnosis, treatment, clinical quality, and adherence.

Methods

All English-language articles published during 2002–2012 on the association between comorbidity and survival among patients with colon cancer, breast cancer, and lung cancer were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to identify eligible studies and their main results were then extracted.

Results

Our search yielded more than 2,500 articles related to comorbidity and cancer, but few investigated the prognostic impact of comorbidity as a primary aim. Most studies found that cancer patients with comorbidity had poorer survival than those without comorbidity, with 5-year mortality hazard ratios ranging from 1.1 to 5.8. Few studies examined the influence of specific chronic conditions. In general, comorbidity does not appear to be associated with more aggressive types of cancer or other differences in tumor biology. Presence of specific severe comorbidities or psychiatric disorders were found to be associated with delayed cancer diagnosis in some studies, while chronic diseases requiring regular medical visits were associated with earlier cancer detection in others. Another finding was that patients with comorbidity do not receive standard cancer treatments such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy as often as patients without comorbidity, and their chance of completing a course of cancer treatment is lower. Postoperative complications and mortality are higher in patients with comorbidity. It is unclear from the literature whether the apparent undertreatment reflects appropriate consideration of greater toxicity risk, poorer clinical quality, patient preferences, or poor adherence among patients with comorbidity.

Conclusion

Despite increasing recognition of the importance of comorbid illnesses among cancer patients, major challenges remain. Both treatment effectiveness and compliance appear compromised among cancer patients with comorbidity. Data on clinical quality is limited.

Effect of patient socioeconomic status on access to early-phase cancer trials

PURPOSE

Little is known about the influence of socioeconomic factors on patient access to cancer trials. Differences should be considered to ensure generalizability of trial results and equality of access.

METHODS

Phase I trials unit referrals at our center over 5 years, from 2007 to 2012, were reviewed. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD; 1, least deprived; 5, most deprived). Multivariate analysis was performed comparing incident cancer cases with referred patients and those ultimately enrolled onto a trial.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty patients were referred (median age, 62 years). Compared with 10,784 incident cases, referral was less likely for patients in the more-deprived quintiles compared with the least deprived (IMD 5: odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.74). Once reviewed in the unit, enrollment onto a trial was not affected (IMD 5: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.63). Ethnicity analysis showed the nonwhite population was less likely to be recruited (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.88). This relationship was lost with adjustment for age, sex, cancer type, and deprivation index.

CONCLUSION

We show for the first time to our knowledge that socioeconomic status affects early-phase cancer trial referrals. The least-deprived patients are almost twice as likely to be referred compared with the most deprived. This may be because more-deprived patients are less suitable for a trial-as a result of comorbidities, for example-or because of inequalities that could be addressed by patient or referrer education. Once reviewed at the unit, enrollment onto a trial is not affected by deprivation.

Communication in view of limited resources: international perspective

Low socioeconomic status is associated with several risk factors for cancer, including a higher risk of presentation with advanced and often incurable disease. Treating patients in areas with limited resources requires not only the goal of saving or prolonging life, but also to alleviate suffering, including physical, emotional, and social components. Because complete coverage of all costs for modern cancer management by local institutions or governments is not possible in most (if not all) areas, most patients with cancer have to contribute toward the costs of their treatment. However, the demand for financially sustainable health care leads to restrictions in the spectrum of available treatments and often results in the creation of waiting lists for people requiring treatment. Communication between patients and providers in such circumstances is often challenging, especially when coupled with patients who have limited or no health care insurance and/or lack any ability to pay for services. Ultimately, any treatment plan should take into account the risks, benefits, personal goals, and beliefs of the individual with cancer. In areas of limited resources, the financial burden of treatment placed on the patient and his or her family must also be a part of the conversation and decisions regarding therapy. Within these parameters, sharing information and options becomes an indispensable condition for communication and the foundation of trust in the doctor-patient relationship.