Influence of socioeconomic status on survival of hepatocellular carcinoma in the Ontario population; a population-based study, 1990-2009

Nathaniel Jembere, Michael A Campitelli, Morris Sherman, Jordan J Feld, Wendy Lou, Stuart Peacock, Eric Yoshida, Murray D Krahn, Craig Earle, Hla-Hla Thein, Nathaniel Jembere, Michael A Campitelli, Morris Sherman, Jordan J Feld, Wendy Lou, Stuart Peacock, Eric Yoshida, Murray D Krahn, Craig Earle, Hla-Hla Thein

Abstract

Background: Research has shown that people from higher socioeconomic status (SES) have better hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) survival outcomes, although no such research has been carried out in Canada. We aimed to assess if an association between SES and HCC survival existed in the Canadian context.

Methodology/principal findings: We conducted a population-based cohort study linking HCC cases identified in the Ontario Cancer Registry between 1990 and 2009 to administrative and hospital data. Logistic regression and chi-squared tests were used to evaluate associations between SES (income quintile) and covariates. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Sequential analysis of the proportional-hazards models were used to determine the association between SES and HCC survival controlling for potential prognostic covariates. During the period 1990-2009, 5,481 cases of HCC were identified. A significant association was found between SES and curative treatment (p = 0.0003), but no association was found between SES and non-curative treatment (p = 0.064), palliative treatment (p = 0.680), or ultrasound screening (p = 0.615). The median survival for the lowest SES was 8.5 months, compared to 8.8 months for the highest SES group. The age- and sex-adjusted proportional-hazards model showed statistically significant difference in HCC survival among the SES groups, with hazard ratio 0.905 (95% confidence intervals 0.821, 0.998) when comparing highest to lowest SES group. Further adjustments indicated that potentially curative treatment was the likely explanation for the association between SES and HCC survival.

Conclusions/significance: Our findings suggest that a 10% HCC survival advantage exists for the higher SES groups. This association between SES and HCC survival is most likely a reflection of lack of access to care for low SES groups, revealing inequities in the Canadian healthcare system.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of people…
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of people diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma by socio-economic status, 1990–2009.
Log-rank test: p = 0.172. Income quintile 1, lowest socioeconomic status; Income quintile 5, highest socioeconomic status.
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of people…
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of people who received curative treatment for with hepatocellular carcinoma by socio-economic status, 1990–2009.
Log-rank test: p = 0.376. Income quintile 1, lowest socioeconomic status; Income quintile 5, highest socioeconomic status.

References

    1. Pocobelli G, Cook LS, Brant R, Lee SS. Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence trends in Canada: analysis by birth cohort and period of diagnosis. Liver Int. 2008;28:1272–1279.
    1. Dyer Z, Peltekian K, van Zanten SV. Review article: the changing epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:17–22.
    1. El-Serag HB, Marrero JA, Rudolph L, Reddy KR. Diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1752–1763.
    1. Yun EH, Lim MK, Oh JK, Park JH, Shin A, et al. Combined effect of socioeconomic status, viral hepatitis, and lifestyles on hepatocelluar carcinoma risk in Korea. Br J Cancer. 2010;103:741–746.
    1. Artinyan A, Mailey B, Sanchez-Luege N, Khalili J, Sun CL, et al. Race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status influence the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Cancer. 2010;116:1367–1377.
    1. Kogevinas M, Marmot MG, Fox AJ, Goldblatt PO. Socioeconomic differences in cancer survival. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1991;45:216–219.
    1. Zak Y, Rhoads KF, Visser BC. Predictors of surgical intervention for hepatocellular carcinoma: race, socioeconomic status, and hospital type. Arch Surg. 2011;146:778–784.
    1. Kwong SL, Stewart SL, Aoki CA, Chen MS., Jr Disparities in hepatocellular carcinoma survival among Californians of Asian ancestry, 1988 to 2007. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:2747–2757.
    1. Bradley CJ, Given CW, Roberts C. Race, socioeconomic status, and breast cancer treatment and survival. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:490–496.
    1. Cella DF, Orav EJ, Kornblith AB, Holland JC, Silberfarb PM, et al. Socioeconomic status and cancer survival. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:1500–1509.
    1. Schrijvers CT, Mackenbach JP, Lutz JM, Quinn MJ, Coleman MP. Deprivation, stage at diagnosis and cancer survival. Int J Cancer. 1995;63:324–329.
    1. Mackillop WJ, Zhang-Salomons J, Groome PA, Paszat L, Holowaty E. Socioeconomic status and cancer survival in Ontario. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:1680–1689.
    1. Canadian Health Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-6. Available: . Accessed 2011 Aug 1.
    1. Cagnoni C, Pancotti D, Carrara G. Management of patients with HCV infection poorly tolerant to recombinant interferon alpha. Hepato-Gastroenterology. 2000;47:199–203.
    1. Gorey KM, Fung KY, Luginaah IN, Holowaty EJ, Hamm C. Income and long-term breast cancer survival: comparisons of vulnerable urban places in Ontario and California. Breast J. 2010;16:416–419.
    1. Gorey KM, Luginaah IN, Bartfay E, Fung KY, Holowaty EJ, et al. Effects of socioeconomic status on colon cancer treatment accessibility and survival in Toronto, Ontario, and San Francisco, California, 1996–2006. Am J Public Health. 2011;101:112–119.
    1. Gorey KM, Luginaah IN, Hamm C, Fung KY, Holowaty EJ. Breast cancer care in the Canada and the United States: ecological comparisons of extremely impoverished and affluent urban neighborhoods. Health Place. 2010;16:156–163.
    1. Gorey KM, Luginaah IN, Holowaty EJ, Fung KY, Hamm C. Breast cancer survival in ontario and california, 1998–2006: socioeconomic inequity remains much greater in the United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19:121–124.
    1. Boyd C, Zhang-Salomons JY, Groome PA, Mackillop WJ. Associations between community income and cancer survival in Ontario, Canada, and the United States. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:2244–2255.
    1. Booth CM, Li G, Zhang-Salomons J, Mackillop WJ. The impact of socioeconomic status on stage of cancer at diagnosis and survival: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. Cancer. 2010;116:4160–4167.
    1. Hall S, Schulze K, Groome P, Mackillop W, Holowaty E. Using cancer registry data for survival studies: the example of the Ontario Cancer Registry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:67–76.
    1. Robles SC, Marrett LD, Clarke EA, Risch HA. An application of capture-recapture methods to the estimation of completeness of cancer registration. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:495–501.
    1. Clarke EA, Marrett LD, Kreiger N. Cancer registration in Ontario: a computer approach. IARC Sci Publ. 1991. pp. 246–257.
    1. Alibhai SM, Leach M, Tomlinson G, Krahn MD, Fleshner N, et al. 30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1525–1532.
    1. Match Ware Technologies lnc., AUTOMATCH Generalized Record Linkage System, Silver Spring, MD; 1992. Available: . Accessed 2011 Oct 13.
    1. Wilkins R. Automated geographic coding based on the Statistics Canada Postal Code Conversion Files, including postal codes to December 2003. Ottawa: Health Analysis and Measurement Group, Statistics Canada. Available: . Accessed 2011 Oct 13. 2004.
    1. Statistics Canada Agriculture Division. Agriculture and Rural Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 61. Definitions of “Rural”. Catalogue No. 21–601-MIE; December 2002. Available: . Accessed 2011 Oct 13.
    1. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383.
    1. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–619.
    1. Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Origins of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a review. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:5–19.
    1. Joshi S, Song YM, Kim TH, Cho SI. Socio-economic status and the risk of liver cancer mortality: a prospective study in Korean men. Public Health. 2008;122:1144–1151.
    1. Yim J, Hwang SS, Yoo KY, Kim CY. Contribution of income-related inequality and healthcare utilisation to survival in cancers of the lung, liver, stomach and colon. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;66(1):37–40.
    1. Gorey KM, Kliewer E, Holowaty EJ, Laukkanen E, Ng EY. An international comparison of breast cancer survival: Winnipeg, Manitoba and Des Moines, Iowa, metropolitan areas. Ann Epidemiol. 2003;13:32–41.
    1. Groome PA, Schulze KM, Keller S, Mackillop WJ, O’Sullivan B, et al. Explaining socioeconomic status effects in laryngeal cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2006;18:283–292.
    1. Geronimus AT, Bound J. Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148:475–486.
    1. Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:703–710.
    1. Mustard CA, Derksen S, Berthelot JM, Wolfson M. Assessing ecologic proxies for household income: a comparison of household and neighbourhood level income measures in the study of population health status. Health Place. 1999;5:157–171.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera