Explaining socioeconomic status effects in laryngeal cancer

被引:45
作者
Groome, PA
Schulze, KM
Keller, S
Mackillop, WJ
O'Sullivan, B
Irish, JC
Bissett, RJ
Dixon, PF
Eapen, LJ
Gulavita, SPP
Hammond, JA
Hodson, DI
Mackenzie, RG
Schneider, KM
Warde, PR
机构
[1] Queens Univ, Queens Canc Res Inst, Div Canc Care & Epidemiol, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
[2] Princess Margaret Hosp, Toronto, ON M4X 1K9, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Canc Care Ontario, Reg Canc Ctr, Dept Radiat Oncol, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
access to care; laryngeal cancer; population-based; socioeconomic status; survival;
D O I
10.1016/j.clon.2005.12.010
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Introduction: People with lower socioeconomic status (SES) experience shorter survival times after a cancer diagnosis for many disease sites. We determined whether area-level SES was associated with the outcomes: cause-specific survival and local-regional failure in laryngeal cancer in Ontario, Canada. When we found an association we sought explanations that might be related to access to care including age, sex, rural residence, tumor stage, lymph node status, use of diagnostic imaging, treatment type, percentage of prescribed radiotherapy delivered, number of radiotherapy interruption days, treatment waiting time, and treating cancer center. Materials and methods: The study population consisted of 661 glottic and 495 supraglottic stage-stratified randomly-sampled patients identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry. Area-level SES quintiles were assigned using adjusted median household income from the Canadian Census. Other data were collected from patient charts. Explanations for SES effects were determined by measuring whether the effect moved toward the null value by at least 10% when an access indicator was added to a the model. Results: Socioeconomic status was not related to either outcome for those with supraglottic cancer, but an association was present in glottic cancer. With the highest socioeconomic status quintile as the referent group, the relative risks for patients in the lowest socioeconomic quintile were 2.75 (95% Cl 1.482 5.12) for cause-specific survival and 1.90 (95% Cl 1.242 2.93) for local-regional failure. Disease stage as measured by T-category explained between 3% and 23% of these socioeconomic effects. None of the other access indicators met our 10% change criterion. Conclusion: We question why people in lower socioeconomic quintiles were not diagnosed earlier in the disease progression. Having ruled out several variables that may be related to access to care, additional biologic and social variables should be examined to further understand socioeconomic status effects.
引用
收藏
页码:283 / 292
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The association of low socioeconomic status with advanced stage thyroid cancer
    Almubarak, Ali A.
    Albkiry, Yara A.
    Alsalem, Abdulaziz A.
    Saad, Mohammed A. Elkrim
    JOURNAL OF TAIBAH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCIENCES, 2021, 16 (04): : 482 - 490
  • [22] Socioeconomic Status and Rurality Among Patients With Head and Neck Cancer
    Lawrence, Lauren A.
    Heuermann, Mitchell L.
    Javadi, Pardis
    Sharma, Arun
    OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY, 2022, 166 (06) : 1028 - 1037
  • [23] Effects of nutritional and socioeconomic status on puberty
    Oyewole, Omosalewa
    Adediran, Adekunle
    Oduwole, Abiola
    NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF BASIC AND CLINICAL SCIENCES, 2023, 20 (01) : 40 - 45
  • [24] Effects of race and socioeconomic status on survival of 1,332 black, Hispanic, and white women with breast cancer
    Franzini, L
    Williams, AF
    Franklin, J
    Singletary, SE
    Theriault, RL
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 1997, 4 (02) : 111 - 118
  • [25] Effects of race and socioeconomic status on survival of 1,332 black, hispanic, and white women with breast cancer
    Luisa Franzini
    Anna Fay Williams
    Jack Franklin
    S. Eva Singletary
    Richard L. Theriault
    Annals of Surgical Oncology, 1997, 4 : 111 - 118
  • [26] Examining the Most Relevant Conceptualization of the Socioeconomic Status Construct for Cancer Research
    Gage, Elizabeth
    CANCER NURSING, 2010, 33 (03) : E1 - E9
  • [27] County socioeconomic status and premature mortality from cancer in the United States
    Thomas, Aleah L.
    Kulchar, Rachel J.
    Stephens, Erica S.
    Mason, Lee
    Jackson, Sarah S.
    Harris, Alexandra R.
    Ewing, Aldenise P.
    Shiels, Meredith S.
    Pichardo, Catherine M.
    McGee-Avila, Jennifer K.
    Lawrence, Wayne R.
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2025, 95
  • [29] The relative effect of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality by socioeconomic status
    Ripping, Theodora M.
    van der Waal, Danielle
    Verbeek, Andre L. M.
    Broeders, Mireille J. M.
    MEDICINE, 2016, 95 (31)
  • [30] The validity and reliability of the Socioeconomic Status Instrument for assessing prostate cancer patients
    Cyrus-David, Mfon
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 34 (04) : 382 - 387