Socio-economic disparities in long-term cancer survival—10 year follow-up with individual patient data
Reasons for the social gradient in cancer survival are not fully understood yet. Previous studies were often only able to determine the socio-economic status of the patients from the area they live in, not from their individual socio-economic characteristics.
In a multi-centre cohort study with 1633 cancer patients and 10-year follow-up, individual socio-economic position was measured using the indicators: education, job grade, job type, and equivalence income. The effect on survival was measured for each indicator individually, adjusting for age, gender, and medical characteristics. The mediating effect of health behaviour (alcohol and tobacco consumption) was analysed in separate models.
Patients without vocational training were at increased risk of dying (rate ratio (RR) 1.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–2.2) compared to patients with the highest vocational training; patients with blue collar jobs were at increased risk (RR 1.2; 95% CI 1.0–1.5) compared to patients with white collar jobs; income had a gradual effect (RR for the lowest income compared to highest was 2.7, 95% CI 1.9–3.8). Adding health behaviour to the models did not change the effect estimates considerably. There was no evidence for an effect of school education and job grade on cancer survival.
Patients with higher income, better vocational training, and white collar jobs survived longer, regardless of disease stage at baseline and of tobacco and alcohol consumption.
KeywordsSocio-economic position Socio-economic status Cancer Health inequality Health inequity Disparities Income Education Job grade Survival
Compliance with ethical standards
This work was supported by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 01ZZ0106) to Prof. Reinhold Schwarz for baseline data collection. The mortality follow-up received no funding.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 7.Akinyemiju TF, Soliman AS, Johnson NJ, Altekruse SF, Welch K, Banerjee M, Schwartz K, Merajver S (2013) Individual and neighborhood socioeconomic status and healthcare resources in relation to black-white breast cancer survival disparities. Journal of cancer epidemiology 2013: Article ID 490472Google Scholar
- 8.Shariff-Marco S, Yang J, John EM, Sangaramoorthy M, Hertz A, Koo J, Nelson DO, Schupp CW, Shema SJ, Cockburn M, Satariano WA, Yen IH, Ponce NA, Winkleby M, THM K, Gomez SL (2014) Impact of neighborhood and individual socioeconomic status on survival after breast cancer varies by race/ethnicity: the neighborhood and breast cancer study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 23:793–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Lyratzopoulos G, Barbiere JM, Rachet B, Baum M, Thompson MR, Coleman MP (2011) Changes over time in socioeconomic inequalities in breast and rectal cancer survival in England and Wales during a 32-year period (1973-2004): the potential role of health care. Ann Oncol 22:1661–1666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rutherford MJ, Hinchliffe SR, Abel GA, Lyratzopoulos G, Lambert PC, Greenberg DC (2013) How much of the deprivation gap in cancer survival can be explained by variation in stage at diagnosis: an example from breast cancer in the east of England. Int J Cancer 133:2192–2200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Groome P, Schulze KM, Keller S, Mackillop WJ, O’Sullivan B, Irish JC, Bissett RJ, Dixon PF, Eapen LJ, Gulavita SP, Hammond JA, Hodson DI, Mackenzie RG, Schneider KM, Warde PR (2006) Explaining socioeconomic status effects in laryngeal cancer. Clinical Oncology (R Coll Radiol) 18:283–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Polednak AP (2002) Survival of breast cancer patients in Connecticut in relation to socioeconomic and health care access indicators. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 79: 211–218Google Scholar
- 30.Hagenaars A, de Vos K, Zaidi MA (1994) Poverty statistics in the late 1980s: research based on micro-data. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
- 31.Verband deutscher Rentenversicherungsträger (1999) Förderschwerpunkt “Rehabilitationswissenschaften”. Empfehlungen der Arbeitsgruppen “Generische Methoden”, “Routinedaten” und “Reha-Ökonomie”. DRV-Schriften ed. VDR, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
- 32.First M, Spitzer R, Gibbon M, Williams J (1997) Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders (SCID-I), clinician version. American Psychiatric Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 33.Lyratzopoulos G, Abel GA, Brown CH, Rous BA, Vernon SA, Roland M, Greenberg DC (2013) Socio-demographic inequalities in stage of cancer diagnosis: evidence from patients with female breast, lung, colon, rectal, prostate, renal, bladder, melanoma, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol 24:843–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Singer S, Roick J, Briest S, Stark S, Gockel I, Boehm A, Papsdorf K, Meixensberger J, Müller T, Prietzel T, Schiefke F, Dietel A, Bräunlich J, Danker H (2016) Impact of socio-economic position on cancer stage at presentation: findings from a large hospital-based study in Germany. Int J Cancer 139:1696–1702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar