Inequities in cancer outcomes

Mohamed El Amine Youcef Ali,Wilma Nusselder,Elisabete Weiderpass,Marilys Corbex,Freddie Bray,Salvatore Vaccarella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.23.290661

IF: 13.831

2023-09-04

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Abstract:Bull World Health Organ . 2023 Sep 1;101(9):550. doi: 10.2471/BLT.23.290661. NO

public, environmental & occupational health

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Abstract A028: Revisiting cancer care inequities in Sub-Saharan Africa: standpoint and recommendations

John Oluwafemi Teibo,Olabode Omotoso,Festus Adebayo Atiba,Tolulope Oladimeji,Tomiwa Kehinde Paimo,Farid S. Ataya,Gaber El-Saber Batiha,Athanasios Alexiou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-a028

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: Cancer is a major global public health concern that claims around 2000 lives per day in Africa alone. Mortality rates are expected to rise in the absence of appropriate interventions. Equity and prioritizing are the main obstacles to cancer care in Africa, as policymakers and other stakeholders in the healthcare system do not give cancer enough attention. All aspects of the cancer care continuum especially these three main levels of cancer care—prevention, diagnosis, and treatment/management—are negatively impacted by this neglect. Addressing concerns of equity and prioritizing is essential to promoting equality in cancer care, as it guarantees that all individuals have an equal opportunity at cancer prevention, early detection, appropriate therapy, and follow-up treatment. Methods: We present an overview of the current status of cancer care in Africa and offer recommendations to bridge the gap using the material currently accessible from recognized databases. Results: Insufficient funding for cancer research, inadequate screening or diagnostic facilities, a lack of a well-organized and efficient cancer registry system and access to care, a shortage of specialized medical staff, high costs for screening, vaccination, and treatment, a lack of technical capacity, poor vaccination response, and late patient presentation for cancer screening are some of the factors that we highlighted as contributing to the disparity in cancer care in Africa. We also offer suggestions on overcoming some of these barriers to achieving fairness in cancer care. Our recommendations are broken down into capacity-based and national-level initiatives. These include improving healthcare budgeting for personnel, supplies, and facilities; encouraging screening and vaccine uptake; raising awareness of cancer health among medical professionals during every hospital visit, gaining knowledge through specialized training, financing cancer research, offering cancer insurance, and putting mobile health technologies to use for telemedicine diagnosis.Conclusion: A comprehensive approach to addressing issues related to cancer equity would increase the chances of cancer patients surviving longer, reduce risk factors for at-risk groups, and guarantee fair access to cancer care across the continent. This report describes the present barriers to achieving equity in cancer care, identifies the African countries' current positions on the matter, and offers recommendations that could have the greatest impact on achieving equity in cancer care. Citation Format: John Oluwafemi Teibo, Olabode Omotoso, Festus Adebayo Atiba, Tolulope Oladimeji, Tomiwa Kehinde Paimo, Farid S. Ataya, Gaber El-Saber Batiha, Athanasios Alexiou. Revisiting cancer care inequities in Sub-Saharan Africa: standpoint and recommendations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr A028.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
The Impact of Interventions Addressing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Cancer-Related Outcomes in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Annie Bygrave,Kate Whittaker,Sanchia Aranda AM,Aranda AM Sanchia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1711

2020-07-28

Journal of Public Health Research

Abstract:Background High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.
Disparities in Breast Cancer Care—How Factors Related to Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Drive Inequity

Avia D. Wilkerson,Corey K. Gentle,Camila Ortega,Zahraa Al-Hilli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12040462

2024-02-13

Health Care

Abstract:Breast cancer survival has increased significantly over the last few decades due to more effective strategies for prevention and risk modification, advancements in imaging detection, screening, and multimodal treatment algorithms. However, many have observed disparities in benefits derived from such improvements across populations and demographic groups. This review summarizes published works that contextualize modern disparities in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and presents potential strategies for reducing disparities. We conducted searches for studies that directly investigated and/or reported disparities in breast cancer prevention, detection, or treatment. Demographic factors, social determinants of health, and inequitable healthcare delivery may impede the ability of individuals and communities to employ risk-mitigating behaviors and prevention strategies. The disparate access to quality screening and timely diagnosis experienced by various groups poses significant hurdles to optimal care and survival. Finally, barriers to access and inequitable healthcare delivery patterns reinforce inequitable application of standards of care. Cumulatively, these disparities underlie notable differences in the incidence, severity, and survival of breast cancers. Efforts toward mitigation will require collaborative approaches and partnerships between communities, governments, and healthcare organizations, which must be considered equal stakeholders in the fight for equity in breast cancer care and outcomes.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Existing Health Inequities in the Treatment of Advanced and Metastatic Cancers

Navya Nair,Matthew Schlumbrecht

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-024-01617-3

2024-11-06

Current Oncology Reports

Abstract:This study aims to identify health inequities related to the medical treatment and supportive care of patients with advanced/metastatic cancer and recommend solutions to promote health equity.

oncology
Abstract B006: Reduced survival outcomes in lower income quintile groups for women with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada

Danilo Giffoni M. M. Mata,Rossanna C. Pezo,Kelvin K.W. Chan,Ines Menjak,Andrea Eisen,Maureen Trudeau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-b006

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Background: Despite the comparably comprehensive healthcare system in Canada, health inequities are widespread, and this holds true for breast cancer patients in Ontario. It is thus essential to learn if socio-demographic disparities continue after diagnosis of breast cancer, and if these contribute to higher mortality rates in the lower income quintile groups. Methods: We conducted a real-word population-based study using a provincial health administrative dataset from Ontario, Canada. We included patients diagnosed with HER2-negative breast cancer, treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy, between 2009 to 2017. We used log-rank test and Kaplan Meier curves to compare overall survival (OS) between breast cancer populations among income quintile groups, and Cox regression to evaluate risk factors, using hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: We analysed 10,634 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer. At diagnosis, in the Q1 group, there were 248 (15.8%) women with stage I, 997 (63.7%) with stage II, and 320 (20.45%) with stage III. In the Q5 group, there were 568 (22.15%), with stage I, 1,532 (59.75%) with stage II and 464 (18%) with stage III. Comparison between those in the lowest versus highest income quintile groups, and lymph node (LN) status at diagnosis, showed that in Q1, 534 (34%) women had LN 0 and 897 (57.3%) had LN+. In Q5, there were 954 (37.2%) women with LN 0 and 1,379 (53.8%) with LN+. Similarly, comparing tumor size (TS) at diagnosis, we found that in Q1, there were 463 (32.2%) women with TS≤ 2 cm and 974 (67.8%) with TS > 2 cm. In Q5, 915 (39%) women had TS≤ 2 cm and 1,426 (61%) had TS > 2 cm. In the Q1 group, there were 325 (20.7%) patients who received non- anthracycline and 1,240 (79.3%) treated with anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy. In Q5, there were 673 (26.2%) women treated with non-anthracycline and 1,891 (73.8%) who received anthracycline-taxane chemotherapy. The OS analysis based on the household income group compared to Q5 showed a substantial difference in the Q1 (HR 1.52, 1.2–1.9, p = 0.0002) and Q2 (HR 1.34, 1.1–1.7, p = 0.006) groups. In Cox regression models, Q5 group and endocrine receptor (ER) positive were significantly associated with reduced mortality risk. There was a significant correlation between increased risk of death and the following: receipt of non- anthracycline chemotherapy, TS > 2 cm, LN+ and grade 3 histology. Conclusion: Our study found an uneven distribution of breast cancer patients between the lowest and highest income quintile groups. Women with HER2-negative breast cancer who were part of the lower income quintile groups, thereby likely with a socioeconomic disadvantage, had the lowest OS. At diagnosis, these women were more likely to have more advanced breast cancer staging, including larger tumors, LN+, and receive anthracycline-based chemotherapy as compared to those with higher household income. Further research is warranted to identify the key social determinants that are systematically associated with disparities in equitable access to care. Citation Format: Danilo Giffoni M. M. Mata, Rossanna C. Pezo, Kelvin K.W. Chan, Ines Menjak, Andrea Eisen, Maureen Trudeau. Reduced survival outcomes in lower income quintile groups for women with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr B006.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Economic Evaluations of Interventions Addressing Inequalities in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

Bedasa Taye Merga,Nikki McCaffrey,Suzanne Robinson,Ebisa Turi,Anita Lal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.09.010

2024-10-09

Abstract:Objectives: Although substantial evidence exists on the costs and benefits of cancer care and screening programs for the general population, economic evidence of interventions addressing inequalities is less well known. This systematic review summarized economic evaluations of interventions addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care to inform decision makers on the value for money of such interventions. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published from database inception to October 27, 2023. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were economic evaluations of interventions to improve or address inequalities in cancer care among disadvantaged population groups. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results (US dollars 2023) were summarized. Study quality was assessed by 2 authors using the Drummond checklist. Results: The searches yielded 2937 records, with 30 meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. In most of the studies (n = 27, 90%), interventions were considered cost-effective in addressing inequalities in cancer care and screening among disadvantaged populations. Notably, 60% of the studies were rated as high quality, 33.3% as good, and 6.7% as fair quality. Conclusions: This systematic review identified cost-effective strategies addressing inequalities in cancer screening and care that have the potential to be replicated in other locations. The interventions were mainly focused on screening programs, and few addressed equity gaps around risk reduction and diagnostic and treatment outcomes. This underscores the need for targeted approaches to address inequalities in under-researched priority population groups along the cancer care continuum.
A systematic review of public health interventions to address breast cancer inequalities in low- and middle-income countries

Esther Z. Chanakira,Chloe V. Thomas,Julie Balen,Olena Mandrik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02620-2

2024-07-27

Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in the world, with a worse prognosis documented in low- and middle-income countries. Inequalities pertaining to breast cancer outcomes are observed at within-country level, with demographics and socioeconomic status as major drivers.

medicine, general & internal
Breast cancer: Inaction on inequalities has led to unequal progress, say experts

Jacqui Wise

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q854

2024-04-16

BMJ

Abstract:Despite tremendous advances in breast cancer research and treatment over the past three decades many groups are systematically left behind, ignored, or even forgotten, an international group of experts has concluded.1The Lancet Breast Cancer Commission says progress in cancer management has led to a decrease of over 40% in breast cancer mortality in some high income countries. At the end of 2020, 7.8 million people were alive having been diagnosed in the previous five years. Some 685 000 women died from the disease in 2020, however, and physical symptoms, emotional despair, and financial burden are often hidden and not properly tackled."Society and policy makers currently see only the tip of the iceberg," they wrote in the Lancet.Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the global incidence is expected to rise from 2.3 million new cases in 2020 to over 3 million in 2040. Between 20% and 30% of patients...

medicine, general & internal
Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Pickwell-Smith,B. A.,Spencer,K.,Sadeghi,M. H.,Greenley,S.,Lind,M.,Macleod,U.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080467

IF: 3.006

2024-01-04

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer living in more deprived areas experience worse survival than those in more affluent areas. Those living in more deprived areas face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. These barriers may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in survival. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, hospital delay and treatments received among patients with colorectal cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare. Design MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2023. Grey literature, including HMIC, BASE and Google Advanced Search, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Observational UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either hospital delay or treatments received. The QUIPS tool assessed bias risk, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020. Results 41 of the 7209 identified references were included. 12 studies evaluated 7 different hospital intervals. There was a significant association between area-level deprivation and a longer time from first presentation in primary care to diagnosis. 32 studies evaluated treatments received. There were socioeconomic inequalities in surgery and chemotherapy but not radiotherapy. Conclusion Patients with colorectal cancer face inequalities across the cancer care continuum. Further research is needed to understand why and what evidence-based actions can reduce these inequalities in treatment. Qualitative research of patients and clinicians conducted across various settings would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities. Further research should also consider using a causal approach to future studies to considerably strengthen the interpretation. Clinicians can try and mitigate some potential causes of colorectal cancer inequalities, including signposting to financial advice and patient transport schemes. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022347652.

medicine, general & internal
Despite multi-disciplinary team discussions the socioeconomic disparities persist in the oncological treatment of non-metastasized colorectal cancer

Erik Osterman,Elisavet Syriopoulou,Anna Martling,Therese M-L Andersson,Caroline Nordenvall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2024.113572

IF: 10.002

2024-01-24

European Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Background The introduction of national guidelines should eliminate previously observed associations between socioeconomic status (SES) and colorectal cancer treatment. The aim of the study was to investigate whether inequalities remain. Methods CRCBaSe, a register-linkage originating from the Swedish Colorectal Cancer Registry, was used to identify information on patient and tumour characteristics, for 74,342 patients with stage I-III disease diagnosed 2008-2021. SES was measured as disposable income (quartiles) and the highest level of education. Outcomes of interest were emergency surgery, multidisciplinary team (MDT) conference discussion, and oncological treatment. Differences in treatment between SES groups were explored using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for year of diagnosis, age at diagnosis, sex, civil status, comorbidities, tumour location and stage. Results Patients in the highest income quartile had a lower risk of emergency surgery (OR 0.73 95%CI 0.68-0.80), a higher chance of being discussed at the preoperative (OR 1.39 95%CI 1.28-1.51) and postoperative MDT (OR 1.41 95%CI 1.30-1.53), receiving neoadjuvant (OR 1.15 95%CI 1.06-1.25) and adjuvant treatment (OR 2.04 95%CI 1.88-2.20). Higher education level increased the odds of MDT discussion but was not associated with oncological treatment. The proportion of patients discussed at the MDT increased, with almost all patients discussed since 2016. Despite this, treatment differences remained when patients diagnosed since 2016 were analysed separately. Conclusion There were significant differences in how patients with different SES were treated for colorectal cancer. Further action is required to investigate the drivers of these differences as well as their impact on mortality and, ultimately, eliminate the inequalities.

oncology
Abstract PO2-09-12: The magnitude and temporal variations of socioeconomic inequalities in quality of life after early breast cancer: results from the multicentric French CANTO cohort

José Luis Sandoval,Antonio Di Meglio,Arlindo Ferreira,Maria Alice Franzoi,Fabrice André,Barbara Pistilli,Christelle Jouannaud,Marion Fournier,Philippe Rouanet,Asma Dhaini Mermeche,Paul Cottu,Sibille Everhard,Anne-Laure Martin,Silvia Stringhini,Idris Guessous,Ines Vaz Luis,Gwenn Menvielle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-po2-09-12

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Objective Previous studies showed that various outcomes in patients with early breast cancer (EBC), from incidence to survival, were influenced by social factors. However, there is limited research on the socioeconomic inequalities in quality of life (QoL) after treatment for EBC, and the magnitude and changes over time of these inequalities have not been quantified. This study examines the socioeconomic inequalities in QoL and their time trends among a large cohort of patients with EBC. Methods We conducted a comprehensive longitudinal analysis using data from the prospective multicentric CANTO study (CANcer TOxicity, NCT01993498), which included participants with EBC enrolled between 2012 and 2018. QoL was assessed using the summary score of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire at the time of diagnosis and 1 and 2 years post-diagnosis. We included patients with complete QoL data at diagnosis and 2 years post-diagnosis. Analyses were conducted for three indicators of socioeconomic status separately: self-reported financial difficulties, household income and educational level. We first analyzed trajectories of QoL by socioeconomic status from diagnosis to Year 1 and Year 2. Then, social inequalities in QoL were estimated using the regression-based slope indexes of inequality (SII) and compared across the follow-up periods. The SII represents the absolute change in the QLQ-C30 summary score along the two extremes of the socioeconomic gradient, taking into account the intermediate groups and their relative sizes. The analyses were adjusted for age at diagnosis, Charlson comorbidity index, disease stage, use and type of endocrine therapy, use and type of chemotherapy, breast surgery, radiotherapy use, and lymph node management. Results In the 5915 analyzed patients, compared to those with higher socioeconomic status, those reporting a high level of financial difficulty, lower income, or lower education were younger, most often premenopausal, with comorbidities, diagnosed with stage III BC, and treated with mastectomy and axillary lymph node dissection. There were no differences between socioeconomically-defined groups concerning BC histology, grade and IHC-defined subtype. Social inequalities in QoL at baseline were statistically significant for all socioeconomic status indicators (SIIfinancial difficulties = -7.6 [-8.9;-6.2], SIIincome= -4.0 [-5.2;-2.8]) and SIIeducation= -1.9 [-3.1;-0.7]). In multivariable analyses, social inequalities significantly increased (interaction p< 0.05) in Year 1 (SIIfinancial difficulties = -11.1 [-12.8;-9.4], SIIincome= -6.5 [-8.0;-5.0] and SIIeducation= -5.0 [-6.6;-3.5]) and Year 2 (SIIfinancial difficulties = -10.7 [-12.2;-9.1], SIIincome= -6.7 [-8.0;-5.3] and SIIeducation= -4.7 [-6.1;-3.3]) suggesting a widening socioeconomic gap in QoL outcomes irrespective of pre-diagnosis health, tumor characteristics and treatment. Similar results were observed in subgroups defined by menopausal status (pre/postmenopausal) and type of systemic treatment (chemotherapy, endocrine therapy). Conclusion Our study highlights and quantifies the association of several individual socioeconomic indicators with the QoL of patients with EBC in France. The magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities in QoL increased over time after EBC diagnosis in a country with a strong welfare system and universal healthcare coverage. In the era of precision medicine, these results underscore the importance of developing interventions to improve precision care, considering the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live and age and the wider set of forces and systems shaping the conditions of daily life. Citation Format: José Luis Sandoval, Antonio Di Meglio, Arlindo Ferreira, Maria Alice Franzoi, Fabrice André, Barbara Pistilli, Christelle Jouannaud, Marion Fournier, Philippe Rouanet, Asma Dhaini Mermeche, Paul Cottu, Sibille Everhard, Anne-Laure Martin, Silvia Stringhini, Idris Guessous, Ines Vaz Luis, Gwenn Menvielle. The magnitude and temporal variations of socioeconomic inequalities in quality of life after early breast cancer: results from the multicentric French CANTO cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr PO2-09-12.

oncology
Socioeconomic inequities in care experienced by women with breast cancer in England: An intersectional cross-sectional study.

Mar Estupiñán Fdez. de Mesa,Afrodita Marcu,Emma Ream,Katriina L. Whitaker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2024.102648

IF: 2.8

2024-06-27

European Journal of Oncology Nursing

Abstract:Purpose Guided by the Intersectionality Framework, we examined the differential in breast cancer care experience across population subgroups in England. Methods Secondary data analysis using the 2017/2018 National Cancer Patient Experience Surveys. We used disaggregated descriptive statistics (mean, standard errors, 95% confidence interval) to analyse 26,030 responses from female breast cancer patients to a question relating to overall care experience categorised by age, ethnicity, and sexual orientation in their intersection with social position. We then used logistic regression to investigate the odds (Odds Ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals) of reporting positive care experience adjusting for patient, clinical, and Trust level factors. Results Poorer care experience was predominantly reported by the most deprived younger and minoritised ethnic groups. Statistically significant findings were observed in adjusted multivariable analyses. Compared to patients aged 64-74 years, younger respondents were less likely to rate their care favourably (16-34 years old OR adj. =0.55 (0.36-0.84). Compared to White British, Asian (OR adj. =0.51 (0.39-0.66)) and Black African women (OR adj. =0.53 (0.33-0.88)) were less likely to rate their care favourably. The least affluent respondents were less likely to rate their care favourably (OR adj. =0.79 (0.64-0.97)). Conclusion There is evidence of inequity in overall cancer care experience among female breast cancer patients in England, particularly among women living at the specific intersection of age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic position. Future research is necessary to understand the mechanisms underlying breast cancer inequities. Policymakers, commissioners, and providers should consider the existence of multiple forms of marginalisation to inform improvement initiatives targeting patients at higher risk of vulnerability.

nursing,oncology
Addressing cancer care inequities in sub-Saharan Africa: current challenges and proposed solutions

Olabode Omotoso,John Oluwafemi Teibo,Festus Adebayo Atiba,Tolulope Oladimeji,Oluwatomiwa Kehinde Paimo,Farid S Ataya,Gaber El-Saber Batiha,Athanasios Alexiou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01962-y

2023-09-11

Abstract:Introduction: Cancer is a significant public health challenge globally, with nearly 2000 lives lost daily in Africa alone. Without adequate measures, mortality rates are likely to increase. The major challenge for cancer care in Africa is equity and prioritization, as cancer is not receiving adequate attention from policy-makers and strategic stakeholders in the healthcare space. This neglect is affecting the three primary tiers of cancer care: prevention, diagnosis, and treatment/management. To promote cancer care equity, addressing issues of equity and prioritization is crucial to ensure that everyone has an equal chance at cancer prevention, early detection, and appropriate care and follow-up treatment. Methodology: Using available literature, we provide an overview of the current state of cancer care in Africa and recommendations to close the gap. Results: We highlight several factors that contribute to cancer care inequity in Africa, including inadequate funding for cancer research, poor cancer education or awareness, inadequate screening or diagnostic facilities, lack of a well-organized and effective cancer registry system and access to care, shortage of specialized medical staff, high costs for screening, vaccination, and treatment, lack of technical capacity, poor vaccination response, and/or late presentation of patients for cancer screening. We also provide recommendations to address some of these obstacles to achieving cancer care equity. Our recommendations are divided into national-level initiatives and capacity-based initiatives, including cancer health promotion and awareness by healthcare professionals during every hospital visit, encouraging screening and vaccine uptake, ensuring operational regional and national cancer registries, improving healthcare budgeting for staff, equipment, and facilities, building expertise through specialty training, funding for cancer research, providing insurance coverage for cancer care, and implementing mobile health technology for telemedicine diagnosis. Conclusion: Addressing challenges to cancer equity holistically would improve the likelihood of longer survival for cancer patients, lower the risk factors for groups that are already at risk, and ensure equitable access to cancer care on the continent. This study identifies the existing stance that African nations have on equity in cancer care, outlines the current constraints, and provides suggestions that could make the biggest difference in attaining equity in cancer care.
Inequalities in relative cancer survival by race, immigration status, income, and education for 22 cancer sites in Canada, a cohort study

Talia Malagon,Sarah Botting-Provost,Alissa Moore,Mariam El-Zein,Eduardo Franco

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.31.24307976

2024-06-03

Abstract:Introduction: There is a paucity of disaggregated data to monitor cancer health inequalities in Canada. We used data linkage to estimate site-specific cancer relative survival by race, immigration status, household income, and education level in Canada. Methods: We pooled the Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohorts, which are linked datasets of 5.9 million respondents of the 2006 long-form census and 6.5 million respondents of the 2011 National Household Survey. Individual-level respondent data from these surveys were probabilistically linked with the Canadian Cancer Registry up to 2015 and with the Canadian Vital Statistics Database up to 2019. We used propensity score matching and Poisson models to calculate age-standardized relative survival by equity stratifiers for all cancers combined and for 22 individual cancer sites for the period 2006-2019. Results: There were 757,485 primary cancer cases diagnosed over follow-up included in survival analyses; the age-standardized period relative survival was 72.5% at 5 years post-diagnosis. Relative survival was higher in immigrants (74.6%, 95%CI 74.3-74.8) than in Canadian-born persons (70.4%, 95%CI 70.2-70.6), and higher in racial groups with high proportions of immigrants. There was a marked social gradient by household income and education level, with 11-12% lower relative survival in cancer patients in the lowest household income and education levels than in the highest levels. Socioeconomic gradients were observed for most cancer sites, though the magnitude varied. Conclusions: Despite the availability of universal healthcare in Canada, the observed differences in relative survival suggest there remain important inequities in cancer control and care.
Social Inequalities in Cancer Survival in Belgium: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Michael Rosskamp,Julie Verbeeck,Victoria Sass,Sylvie Gadeyne,Freija Verdoodt,Harlinde De Schutter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0721

Abstract:Background: Socioeconomic status (SES) is an important factor in cancer survival; however, results are heterogeneous and linked to characteristics of the study population and health care system. This population-based cohort study evaluates the association between individual-level socioeconomic and demographic factors and cancer survival for the first time in Belgium. Methods: From the Belgian Cancer Registry, we identified 109,591 patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2013 with one of eight common cancer types. Information on treatment, socioeconomic parameters, and vital status were retrieved from multiple data sources and linked using a unique personal identification number. The outcome was 5-year observed survival. Associations between survival and socioeconomic and demographic factors were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional-hazard regression models. Results: Lower income, unemployment, and living alone were all associated with worse cancer survival. These associations were most pronounced for certain lifestyle-related cancer types (e.g., head and neck cancers) and those with good to moderate prognosis (e.g., colorectal and female breast cancer). Conclusions: These results indicate that, despite a comprehensive and nationwide health insurance program in which equity in rights and access to health care are pursued, SES is associated with disparities in cancer survival in Belgium. Impact: This population-based study with individual-level socioeconomic information of more than 100,000 patients with cancer identifies patient groups that may be at highest risk for socioeconomic disparities in cancer survival. Reasons behind the observed disparities are multiple and complex and should be further examined. Health policy interventions should consider the observed deprivation gap to plan targeted actions.
Socioeconomic Inequalities in Lung Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lynne F. Forrest,Jean Adams,Helen Wareham,Greg Rubin,Martin White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001376

2013-02-05

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Intervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer.METHODS AND FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR = 0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p = 0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p = 0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems.CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.

medicine, general & internal
Equity in oncology care: addressing disparities in cancer treatment in Georgia

Amany R. Keruakous,Inemesit Akpan,Michael Chahin,Aghapy Kirolos,Mai Keruakous

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1381075

IF: 5.2

2024-05-03

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:This research delves into the disparities in access to oncology care among cancer patients in Georgia, with a specific focus on the distinct challenges faced by African American (AA) individuals compared to non-African American (Non-AA) counterparts. Leveraging data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey and supplementary online resources, the study meticulously examines socioeconomic factors, including income, education, and insurance coverage, which significantly influence the quality of cancer care received. The analysis reveals substantial income gaps between AA and Non-AA patients, underscoring the critical implications for healthcare access. Moreover, AA patients exhibit lower rates of full insurance coverage for cancer-related treatments, posing additional barriers to comprehensive care. By investigating the intersections of race, income, and education, the research aims to pinpoint the root causes of these disparities and proposes evidence-based solutions to address the identified challenges. The ultimate objective is to contribute valuable insights that inform targeted policy recommendations and community-based interventions, fostering a more equitable landscape for oncology care in Georgia. This study seeks to amplify awareness and advocate for tangible measures, striving toward healthcare equity for all cancer patients, irrespective of their racial or socioeconomic backgrounds.

public, environmental & occupational health
American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023

Farhad Islami,Jordan Baeker Bispo,Hyunjung Lee,Daniel Wiese,K Robin Yabroff,Priti Bandi,Kirsten Sloan,Alpa V Patel,Elvan C Daniels,Arif H Kamal,Carmen E Guerra,William L Dahut,Ahmedin Jemal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21812

Abstract:In 2021, the American Cancer Society published its first biennial report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States. In this second report, the authors provide updated data on racial, ethnic, socioeconomic (educational attainment as a marker), and geographic (metropolitan status) disparities in cancer occurrence and outcomes and contributing factors to these disparities in the country. The authors also review programs that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. There are substantial variations in risk factors, stage at diagnosis, receipt of care, survival, and mortality for many cancers by race/ethnicity, educational attainment, and metropolitan status. During 2016 through 2020, Black and American Indian/Alaska Native people continued to bear a disproportionately higher burden of cancer deaths, both overall and from major cancers. By educational attainment, overall cancer mortality rates were about 1.6-2.8 times higher in individuals with ≤12 years of education than in those with ≥16 years of education among Black and White men and women. These disparities by educational attainment within each race were considerably larger than the Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality within each educational attainment, ranging from 1.03 to 1.5 times higher among Black people, suggesting a major role for socioeconomic status disparities in racial disparities in cancer mortality given the disproportionally larger representation of Black people in lower socioeconomic status groups. Of note, the largest Black-White disparities in overall cancer mortality were among those who had ≥16 years of education. By area of residence, mortality from all cancer and from leading causes of cancer death were substantially higher in nonmetropolitan areas than in large metropolitan areas. For colorectal cancer, for example, mortality rates in nonmetropolitan areas versus large metropolitan areas were 23% higher among males and 21% higher among females. By age group, the racial and geographic disparities in cancer mortality were greater among individuals younger than 65 years than among those aged 65 years and older. Many of the observed racial, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in cancer mortality align with disparities in exposure to risk factors and access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, which are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health. Equitable policies at all levels of government, broad interdisciplinary engagement to address these inequities, and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage, are needed to reduce cancer disparities.
Abstract B104: Identifying gaps in equitable cancer care: insights from US-based oncology professionals engaged in continuing medical education

Monica Augustyniak,Karen Eldridge,Jayne Gurtler,Benyam Muluneh,Amy DePue,Julia Rodriguez-O'Donnell,Stacy Atkinson,Sophie Péloquin,Ann Murphy,Patrice Lazure

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-b104

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Introduction: A previous evaluation of a five-part accredited continuing medical education (CME) designed to inspire action for equitable cancer care amongst US-based multidisciplinary oncology care team members, showed significant improvements in relevant knowledge and confidence (pre to post activity). This study aimed to revisit the data collected in the scope of this project to identify remaining challenges in ensuring equitable cancer care is delivered to all patients, with underlying gaps in knowledge, confidence and attitude that may be addressed through future CME. Methods: A secondary analysis of data was performed on quantitative (case-based multiple-choice) responses collected from US-based HCPs who completed at least one of the five accredited CME activities that were part of the program titled "Addressing Racial Disparities in Cancer Care". Questions assessed learners' knowledge, confidence, and attitudes after exposure to the CME. Crosstabulations with chi-square statistical tests compared quantitative responses by sub-group. The analysis focused on post-CME data to identify remaining educational gaps, with the aim of informing the development of future CME programs. Results: The five-part CME education reached 1151 unique HCPs involved in cancer care, with activity participation varying between n=103 to n=433. The profession/specialty sub-group most represented in aggregated responses across the five-part CME were registered nurses specialized in hematology/oncology (n=575/1145, 50%). Across US regions, respondents were mostly located in South US (n=446/1150, 39%). A challenge in helping patients navigate socio- economic barriers to oncology care was found, with the following four related gaps affecting a portion of respondents post-CME exposure: 1) misconception that the most important determinant of treatment adherence is a patient's perceived treatment efficacy rather than optimal patient-provider communication (n=57/400, 14%), 2) sub-optimal knowledge of the impact of a patient's community and/or partner on influencing their treatment-seeking behavior (n=31/97, 32%), 3) sub-optimal knowledge of necessary steps to address the root cause of a patients' missed appointments (n=36/227, 16%), 4) sub-optimal confidence in addressing a patients' personal circumstances limiting their access to cancer-care (n=424/1151, 37%). Conclusions: This study identified remaining gaps in knowledge, confidence and attitude among US-based HCPs post-exposure to a CME activity aimed at promoting equitable cancer care. Considering these gaps were observed post-education, the actual proportion of US-based HCPs affected is likely underestimated. Future continuing learning initiatives aimed at addressing cancer care disparities in the US should consider targeting gaps identified in this study by challenging learners to re-consider their knowledge, beliefs and confidence in best approaches to navigating the socio-economic barriers hindering patients from seeking cancer care (e.g., via adaptive learning, peer-to-peer learning). Citation Format: Monica Augustyniak, Karen Eldridge, Jayne Gurtler, Benyam Muluneh, Amy DePue, Julia Rodriguez-O'Donnell, Stacy Atkinson, Sophie Péloquin, Ann Murphy, Patrice Lazure. Identifying gaps in equitable cancer care: insights from US-based oncology professionals engaged in continuing medical education [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr B104.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023

Ulrik Ringborg,Joachim von Braun,Julio Celis,Michael Baumann,Anton Berns,Alexander Eggermont,Edith Heard,Manuel Heitor,Mammen Chandy,Chien-Jen Chen,Alberto Costa,Francesco De Lorenzo,Edward M De Robertis,Frederick Charles Dubee,Ingemar Ernberg,Mariya Gabriel,Åslaug Helland,Rui Henrique,Bengt Jönsson,Olli Kallioniemi,Jan Korbel,Mechthild Krause,Douglas R Lowy,Olivier Michielin,Peter Nagy,Simon Oberst,Vincenzo Paglia,M Iqbal Parker,Kevin Ryan,Charles L Sawyers,Joachim Schüz,Katherine Silkaitis,Eric Solary,David Thomas,Peter Turkson,Elisabete Weiderpass,Huanming Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.13575

Abstract:Analyses of inequalities related to prevention and cancer therapeutics/care show disparities between countries with different economic standing, and within countries with high Gross Domestic Product. The development of basic technological and biological research provides clinical and prevention opportunities that make their implementation into healthcare systems more complex, mainly due to the growth of Personalized/Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM). Initiatives like the USA-Cancer Moonshot and the EU-Mission on Cancer and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan are initiated to boost cancer prevention and therapeutics/care innovation and to mitigate present inequalities. The conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences discussed the inequality problem, dependent on the economic status of a country, the increasing demands for infrastructure supportive of innovative research and its implementation in healthcare and prevention programs. Establishing translational research defined as a coherent cancer research continuum is still a challenge. Research has to cover the entire continuum from basic to outcomes research for clinical and prevention modalities. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) are of critical importance for integrating research innovations to preclinical and clinical research, as for ensuring state-of-the-art patient care within healthcare systems. International collaborative networks between CCCs are necessary to reach the critical mass of infrastructures and patients for PCM research, and for introducing prevention modalities and new treatments effectively. Outcomes and health economics research are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of new interventions, currently a missing element in the research portfolio. Data sharing and critical mass are essential for innovative research to develop PCM. Despite advances in cancer research, cancer incidence and prevalence is growing. Making cancer research infrastructures accessible for all patients, considering the increasing inequalities, requires science policy actions incentivizing research aimed at prevention and cancer therapeutics/care with an increased focus on patients' needs and cost-effective healthcare.

Inequities in cancer outcomes

Abstract A028: Revisiting cancer care inequities in Sub-Saharan Africa: standpoint and recommendations

The Impact of Interventions Addressing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Cancer-Related Outcomes in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Disparities in Breast Cancer Care—How Factors Related to Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Drive Inequity

Existing Health Inequities in the Treatment of Advanced and Metastatic Cancers

Abstract B006: Reduced survival outcomes in lower income quintile groups for women with breast cancer treated with chemotherapy in Ontario, Canada

Economic Evaluations of Interventions Addressing Inequalities in Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

A systematic review of public health interventions to address breast cancer inequalities in low- and middle-income countries

Breast cancer: Inaction on inequalities has led to unequal progress, say experts

Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Despite multi-disciplinary team discussions the socioeconomic disparities persist in the oncological treatment of non-metastasized colorectal cancer

Abstract PO2-09-12: The magnitude and temporal variations of socioeconomic inequalities in quality of life after early breast cancer: results from the multicentric French CANTO cohort

Socioeconomic inequities in care experienced by women with breast cancer in England: An intersectional cross-sectional study.

Addressing cancer care inequities in sub-Saharan Africa: current challenges and proposed solutions

Inequalities in relative cancer survival by race, immigration status, income, and education for 22 cancer sites in Canada, a cohort study

Social Inequalities in Cancer Survival in Belgium: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Socioeconomic Inequalities in Lung Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Equity in oncology care: addressing disparities in cancer treatment in Georgia

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2023

Abstract B104: Identifying gaps in equitable cancer care: insights from US-based oncology professionals engaged in continuing medical education

Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023