Socioeconomic differences impact overall survival in advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) prior to achievement of standard therapy
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.
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.
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).
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.
KeywordsDeprivation Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction Charlson
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Sean Kehoe has received fees for lecturing for Astra Zeneca and Roche. Janos Balega has received personal fees from Astra Zeneca and Roche. Jennifer Pascoe has received personal fees from Tesaro. All other authors declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Approval for this retrospective study with no patient intervention was obtained from the hospitals research and development department. (Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust Research and Development department).
No identifiable patient details were included in this study.
- 1.Horowitz NS, Miller A, Rungruang B, Richard SD, Rodriguez N, Bookman MA et al (2015) Does aggressive surgery improve outcomes? Interaction between preoperative disease burden and complex surgery in patients with advanced-stage ovarian cancer: an analysis of GOG 182. J Clin Oncol 33(8):937–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.du Bois A, Reuss A, Pujade-Lauraine E, Harter P, Ray-Coquard I, Pfisterer J (2009) Role of surgical outcome as prognostic factor in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: a combined exploratory analysis of 3 prospectively randomized phase 3 multicenter trials: by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynaekologische Onkologie Studiengruppe Ovarialkarzinom [AGO-OVAR] and the Groupe d'Investigateurs Nationaux Pour les Etudes des Cancers de l'Ovaire [GINECO]. Cancer 115(6):1234–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Wright AA, Bohlke K, Armstrong DK, Bookman MA, Cliby WA, Coleman RL et al (2016) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer: Society of Gynecologic Oncology and American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. Gynecol Oncol 143(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.BGCS. British Gynaecological Cancer Society [BGCS] Epithelial Ovarian / Fallopian Tube / Primary Peritoneal Cancer Guidelines: Recommendations for Practice 2017 [Available from: https://bgcs.org.uk/BGCS%20Guidelines%20Ovarian%20Guidelines%202017.pdf.
- 8.Barclay M, Gildea C, Poole J, Hirschowitz L, Menon U, Nordin A (2016) Factors Affecting Short-term Mortality in Women With Ovarian, Tubal, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer: Population-Based Cohort Analysis of English National Cancer Registration Data. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26(1):56–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Coleman MP BP, DamieckiP, Grosclaude PC, Honjo S, Jones J, Knerer G, Pitard A, Quinn MJ, Sloggett A, De Stavola BL. Cancer Survival Trends in England and Wales 1971–1995: Deprivation and NHS Region. [Studies on Medical and Population Subjects No. 61]. London: The Office for National Statistics; 1999.Google Scholar
- 18.NHS. The NHS Cancer Plan: A plan for investment, A plan for reform. In: NHS, editor. 2000.Google Scholar
- 20.NCRI. Gynaecological Cancer Clinical Studies Group: Annual Report 2016–2017. 2017.Google Scholar
- 22.Birmingham City Council. Deprivation in Birmingham: Analysis of Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015. 2015.Google Scholar
- 25.Phillips A, Sundar S, Singh K, Nevin J, Elattar A, Kehoe S, et al. Complete cytoreduction after five or more cycles of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy confers a survival benefit in advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018.Google Scholar
- 26.Phillips A, Pounds R, Balega J, Singh K (2016) Histopathological correlation of splenic disease with radiological and surgical findings: should we incorporate splenectomy into standard procedures for disseminated Millerian adenocarcinoma? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 37(5):678–684Google Scholar
- 28.Phillips A, Singh K, Pounds R, Sundar S, Kehoe S, Nevin J et al (2017) Predictive value of the age-adjusted Charlston co-morbidity index on peri-operative complications, adjuvant chemotherapy usage and survival in patients undergoing debulking surgery after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol 37(8):1070–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Suidan RS, Leitao MM Jr, Zivanovic O, Gardner GJ, Long Roche KC, Sonoda Y et al (2015) Predictive value of the Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index on perioperative complications and survival in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 138(2):246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Link BG, Phelan J. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;Spec No:80–94.Google Scholar