Socioeconomic environment and cancer incidence: a French population-based study in Normandy

Josephine Bryere, Olivier Dejardin, Veronique Bouvier, Marc Colonna, Anne-Valérie Guizard, Xavier Troussard, Carole Pornet, Françoise Galateau-Salle, Simona Bara, Ludivine Launay, Lydia Guittet, Guy Launoy, Josephine Bryere, Olivier Dejardin, Veronique Bouvier, Marc Colonna, Anne-Valérie Guizard, Xavier Troussard, Carole Pornet, Françoise Galateau-Salle, Simona Bara, Ludivine Launay, Lydia Guittet, Guy Launoy

Abstract

Background: The struggle against social inequalities is a priority for many international organizations. The objective of the study was to quantify the cancer burden related to social deprivation by identifying the cancer sites linked to socioeconomic status and measuring the proportion of cases associated with social deprivation.

Methods: The study population comprised 68 967 cases of cancer diagnosed between 1997 and 2009 in Normandy and collected by the local registries. The social environment was assessed at an aggregated level using the European Deprivation Index (EDI). The association between incidence and socioeconomic status was assessed by a Bayesian Poisson model and the excess of cases was calculated with the Population Attributable Fraction (PAF).

Results: For lung, lips-mouth-pharynx and unknown primary sites, a higher incidence in deprived was observed for both sexes. The same trend was observed in males for bladder, liver, esophagus, larynx, central nervous system and gall-bladder and in females for cervix uteri. The largest part of the incidence associated with deprivation was found for cancer of gall-bladder (30.1%), lips-mouth-pharynx (26.0%), larynx (23.2%) and esophagus (19.6%) in males and for unknown primary sites (18.0%) and lips-mouth-pharynx (12.7%) in females. For prostate cancer and melanoma in males, the sites where incidence increased with affluence, the part associated with affluence was respectively 9.6% and 14.0%.

Conclusions: Beyond identifying cancer sites the most associated with social deprivation, this kind of study points to health care policies that could be undertaken to reduce social inequalities.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proportion of excess cases associated with social deprivation in men.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportion of excess cases associated with social deprivation in women.

References

    1. World Health Organization.
    1. Mackenbach JP, Stirbu I, Roskam A. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2468–81. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa0707519.
    1. Menvielle G, Leclerc A, Chastang JF, Melchior M, Luce D. Changes in socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality rates among French men between 1968 and 1996. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:2082–7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.073429.
    1. Faggiano F, Partanen T, Kogevinas M, Boffeta P. Socioeconomic difference in cancer incidence and mortality. IARC Sci Publ. 1997;138:65–176.
    1. Merletti F, Galassi C, Spadea T. The socioeconomic determinants of cancer. Environ Health. 2009;10:S7.
    1. Robert SA, Strombom I, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, McElroy JA, NewComb PA, Remington PL. Socioeconomic risk factors for breast cancer. Distinguishing individual- and community-level effects. Epidemiology. 2004;15:442–50.
    1. Sanderson M, Coker AL, Perez A, Du XL, Peltz G, Fadden MK. A multilevel analysis of socioeconomic status and prostate cancer risk. Ann Epidemiol. 2006;16:901–7. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2006.02.006.
    1. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE) . .
    1. Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. Choice of geographic unit influences socioeconomic inequalities in breast cancer survival. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:1279–1282. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602506.
    1. Pornet C, Delpierre C, Dejardin O, Grosclaude P, Launay L, Guittet L, Lang T, Launoy G. Construction of an adaptable European transnational ecological deprivation index: the French version. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:982–9. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200311.
    1. Colonna M. Influence des paramètres a priori dans l’estimation bayésienne de risques relatifs. Analyse spatiale du cancer de la vessie dans l’agglomération grenobloise. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2006;54:529–42. doi: 10.1016/S0398-7620(06)76752-9.
    1. Pascutto C, Wakefield JC, Best NG, Richardson S, Bernardinelli L, Staines A, Elliott P. Statistical issues in the analysis of disease mapping data. Stat Med. 2000;19:2493–519. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20000915/30)19:17/18<2493::AID-SIM584>;2-D.
    1. Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A, Best N. Winbugs version 1.4 software and user manual. Cambridge. 2004.
    1. Ancelet S. Exploiter l’approche hiérarchique bayésienne pour la modélisation statistique des structures spatiales . Paris: PhD Thesis, AGRO PARIS TECH, UMR518 Mathématiques et Informatique Appliqués; 2008.
    1. Potthoff R, Whittinghill M. Testing for homogeneity: the binomial and multinomial distributions. Biometrika. 1966;53:167–82.
    1. Rockhill B, Newman B, Weinberg C. Use and misuse of population attributable fractions. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:15–9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.88.1.15.
    1. Shack L, Jordan C, Thomson CS, Mak V, Moller H. Variation in incidence of breast, lung and cervical cancer and malignant melanoma of skin by socioeconomic group in England. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:271. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-271.
    1. Dalton SO, Steding-Jessen M, Engholm G, Schuz J, Olsen JH. Social inequality in incidence of and survival from lung cancer in a population-based study in Denmark, 1994–2003. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:2074–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.06.018.
    1. Shebl FM, Capo-Ramos DE, Graubard BI, Mc Glynn KA, Altekruse SF. Socioeconomic status and hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012;21:1330–5. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0124.
    1. Singh GK, Miller BA, Hankey BF, Edwards BK. Persistent area socioeconomic disparities in U.S. incidence of cervical cancer, mortality, stage, and survival, 1975–2000. Cancer. 2004;101:1081–7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20453.
    1. Luke C, Koczwara B, Karapetis C, Pittman K, Price T, Kotasek D, Beckmann K, Brown M, Roder D. Exploring the epidemiological characteristics of cancers of unknown primary site in an Australian population: implications for research and clinical care. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008;32:383–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00260.x.
    1. Spadea T, d’Errico A, Demeria M, Faggiano F, Pasian S, Zanetti R, Rosso S, Vicari P, Costa G. Educational inequalities in cancer incidence in Turin, Italy. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2009;18:169–78. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e3283265bc9.
    1. Mackillop W, Zhang-Salomons J, Boyd CJ, Groome PA. Associations between community income and cancer incidence in Canada and the United States. Cancer. 2000;89:901–12. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4<901::AID-CNCR25>;2-I.
    1. Ram KJ, Tewari M, Rai A, Sinha R, Mohapatra S, Shukla H. An objective assessment of demography of gallbladder cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2006;93:610–4. doi: 10.1002/jso.20526.
    1. Welch HG, Albertsen PC. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment after the introduction of prostate-specific antigen screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1325–1329. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp278.
    1. Eberle A, Luttmann S, Foraita R, Pohlabeln H. Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence and mortality – a spatial analysis in Bremen, Germany. J Public Health. 2010;18:227–235. doi: 10.1007/s10389-009-0306-1.
    1. Haining R, Law J, Griffith D. Modelling small area counts in the presence of overdispersion and spatial autocorrelation. Comput Stat Data An. 2009;53:2923–37. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2008.08.014.
    1. Jaarsveld C, Miles A, Wardle J. Pathways from deprivation to health differed between individual and neighborhood-based indices. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:712–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.005.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera