Advertisement

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

  • Andrew PhillipsEmail author
  • Sean Kehoe
  • Kavita Singh
  • Ahmed Elattar
  • James Nevin
  • Janos Balega
  • Rachel Pounds
  • Ahmed Elmodir
  • Jennifer Pascoe
  • Indrajit Fernando
  • Sudha Sundar
General Gynecology

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Deprivation Ovarian Cancer Cytoreduction Charlson 

Notes

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.

Ethical approval

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).

Informed consent

No identifiable patient details were included in this study.

References

  1. 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. 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
  3. 3.
    Markman M, Rothman R, Hakes T, Reichman B, Hoskins W, Rubin S et al (1991) Second-line platinum therapy in patients with ovarian cancer previously treated with cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 9(3):389–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ledermann JA, Raja FA, Fotopoulou C, Gonzalez-Martin A, Colombo N, Sessa C, et al. (2013) Newly diagnosed and relapsed epithelial ovarian carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 24(Suppl 6):vi24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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.
  7. 7.
    Urban RR, He H, Alfonso R, Hardesty MM, Gray HJ, Goff BA (2016) Ovarian cancer outcomes: Predictors of early death. Gynecol Oncol 140(3):474–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 9.
    Thrall MM, Gray HJ, Symons RG, Weiss NS, Flum DR, Goff BA (2011) Trends in treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer in the Medicare population. Gynecol Oncol 122(1):100–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shalowitz DI, Epstein AJ, Ko EM, Giuntoli RL 2nd (2016) Non-surgical management of ovarian cancer: Prevalence and implications. Gynecol Oncol 142(1):30–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rachet B, Woods LM, Mitry E, Riga M, Cooper N, Quinn MJ et al (2008) Cancer survival in England and Wales at the end of the 20th century. Br J Cancer 99(Suppl 1):S2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ito Y, Nakaya T, Nakayama T, Miyashiro I, Ioka A, Tsukuma H et al (2014) Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival: a population-based study of adult patients diagnosed in Osaka, Japan, during the period 1993–2004. Acta Oncol 53(10):1423–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jeffreys M, Sarfati D, Stevanovic V, Tobias M, Lewis C, Pearce N et al (2009) Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival in New Zealand: the role of extent of disease at diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18(3):915–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bristow RE, Powell MA, Al-Hammadi N, Chen L, Miller JP, Roland PY et al (2013) Disparities in ovarian cancer care quality and survival according to race and socioeconomic status. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(11):823–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Exarchakou A, Rachet B, Belot A, Maringe C, Coleman MP (2018) Impact of national cancer policies on cancer survival trends and socioeconomic inequalities in England, 1996–2013: population based study. BMJ 360:k764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cooper N, Quinn MJ, Rachet B, Mitry E, Coleman MP (2008) Survival from cancer of the ovary in England and Wales up to 2001. Br J Cancer 99(Suppl 1):S70–S72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 18.
    NHS. The NHS Cancer Plan: A plan for investment, A plan for reform. In: NHS, editor. 2000.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abdel-Rahman ME, Butler J, Sydes MR, Parmar MK, Gordon E, Harper P et al (2014) No socioeconomic inequalities in ovarian cancer survival within two randomised clinical trials. Br J Cancer 111(3):589–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    NCRI. Gynaecological Cancer Clinical Studies Group: Annual Report 2016–2017. 2017.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Phillips A, Balega J, Nevin J, Singh K, Elattar A, Kehoe S et al (2017) Reporting 'Denominator' data is essential for benchmarking and quality standards in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 146(1):94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birmingham City Council. Deprivation in Birmingham: Analysis of Index of Multiple Deprivation 2015. 2015.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delamothe T (2008) Founding principles. BMJ 336(7655):1216–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Phillips A, Sundar S, Singh K, Pounds R, Nevin J, Kehoe S et al (2019) The NICE classification for 'Ultra-radical [extensive] surgery for advanced ovarian cancer' guidance does not meaningfully predict postoperative complications: a cohort study. BJOG 126(1):96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. 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
  27. 27.
    Pounds R, Phillips A, Kehoe S, Nevin J, Sundar S, Elattar A et al (2018) Diaphragm disease in advanced ovarian cancer: Predictability of pre-operative imaging and safety of surgical intervention. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 226:47–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. 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
  30. 30.
    Aletti GD, Podratz KC, Moriarty JP, Cliby WA, Long KH (2009) Aggressive and complex surgery for advanced ovarian cancer: an economic analysis. Gynecol Oncol 112(1):16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cowan RA, Tseng J, Ali N, Dearie H, Murthy V, Gennarelli RL et al (2018) Exploring the impact of income and race on survival for women with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing primary debulking surgery at a high-volume center. Gynecol Oncol 149(1):43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brewer KC, Peterson CE, Davis FG, Hoskins K, Pauls H, Joslin CE (2015) The influence of neighborhood socioeconomic status and race on survival from ovarian cancer: a population-based analysis of Cook County. Illinois Ann Epidemiol 25(8):556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B (2012) Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet 380(9836):37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Austin SR, Wong YN, Uzzo RG, Beck JR, Egleston BL (2015) Why Summary Comorbidity Measures Such As the Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser Score Work. Med Care 53(9):e65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Jaarsveld CH, Miles A, Wardle J (2007) Pathways from deprivation to health differed between individual and neighborhood-based indices. J Clin Epidemiol 60(7):712–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Link BG, Phelan J. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J Health Soc Behav. 1995;Spec No:80–94.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Llueca A, Escrig J, Group Mw. Prognostic value of peritoneal cancer index in primary advanced ovarian cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2018); 44(1):163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peterson CE, Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Kirschner CV, Barrett RE, Kim S et al (2014) The association between neighborhood socioeconomic status and ovarian cancer tumor characteristics. Cancer Causes Control 25(5):633–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kehoe S, Hook J, Nankivell M, Jayson GC, Kitchener H, Lopes T et al (2015) Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer [CHORUS]: an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 386(9990):249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Phillips
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Sean Kehoe
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kavita Singh
    • 2
  • Ahmed Elattar
    • 2
  • James Nevin
    • 2
  • Janos Balega
    • 2
  • Rachel Pounds
    • 2
  • Ahmed Elmodir
    • 4
  • Jennifer Pascoe
    • 4
  • Indrajit Fernando
    • 4
  • Sudha Sundar
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyRoyal Derby HospitalDerbyUK
  2. 2.Pan-Birmingham Gynaecological Cancer CentreCity HospitalBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Institute of Cancer and Genomic SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  4. 4.The Cancer CentreQueen Elizabeth HospitalBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations