BACKGROUND: Upcoming mass screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) makes a review of recent literature on the association with socioeconomic status (SES) relevant, because of marked and contradictory associations with risk, treatment and outcome. METHODS: The Pubmed database using the MeSH terms 'Neoplasms' or 'Colorectal Neoplasms' and 'Socioeconomic Factors' for articles added between 1995 and 1st October 2009 led to 62 articles. RESULTS: Low SES groups exhibited a higher incidence compared with high SES groups in the US and Canada (range risk ratio (RR) 1.0-1.5), but mostly lower in Europe (RR 0.3-0.9). Treatment, survival and mortality all showed less favourable results for people with a lower socioeconomic status: Patients with a low SES received less often (neo)adjuvant therapy (RR ranging from 0.4 to 0.99), had worse survival rates (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3-1.8) and exhibited generally the highest mortality rates up to 1.6 for colon cancer in Europe and up to 3.1 for rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A quite consistent trend was observed favouring individuals with a high SES compared to those with a low SES that still remains in terms of treatment, survival and thus also mortality. We did not find evidence that the low/high SES gradients for treatment chosen and outcome are decreasing. To meet increasing inequalities in mortality from CRC in Europe for people with a low SES and to make mass screening successful, a high participation rate needs to be realised of low SES people in the soon starting screening program.
BACKGROUND: Upcoming mass screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) makes a review of recent literature on the association with socioeconomic status (SES) relevant, because of marked and contradictory associations with risk, treatment and outcome. METHODS: The Pubmed database using the MeSH terms 'Neoplasms' or 'Colorectal Neoplasms' and 'Socioeconomic Factors' for articles added between 1995 and 1st October 2009 led to 62 articles. RESULTS: Low SES groups exhibited a higher incidence compared with high SES groups in the US and Canada (range risk ratio (RR) 1.0-1.5), but mostly lower in Europe (RR 0.3-0.9). Treatment, survival and mortality all showed less favourable results for people with a lower socioeconomic status: Patients with a low SES received less often (neo)adjuvant therapy (RR ranging from 0.4 to 0.99), had worse survival rates (hazard ratio (HR) 1.3-1.8) and exhibited generally the highest mortality rates up to 1.6 for colon cancer in Europe and up to 3.1 for rectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: A quite consistent trend was observed favouring individuals with a high SES compared to those with a low SES that still remains in terms of treatment, survival and thus also mortality. We did not find evidence that the low/high SES gradients for treatment chosen and outcome are decreasing. To meet increasing inequalities in mortality from CRC in Europe for people with a low SES and to make mass screening successful, a high participation rate needs to be realised of low SES people in the soon starting screening program.
Authors: Vijaya Raj Bhatt; Prajwal Dhakal; Sumit Dahal; Smith Giri; Ranjan Pathak; R Gregory Bociek; Peter T Silberstein; James O Armitage Journal: Ther Adv Hematol Date: 2015-10
Authors: Min Lian; Mario Schootman; Chyke A Doubeni; Yikyung Park; Jacqueline M Major; Rosalie A Torres Stone; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Albert R Hollenbeck; Barry I Graubard; Arthur Schatzkin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Nallely Saldana-Ruiz; Sean A P Clouston; Marcie S Rubin; Cynthia G Colen; Bruce G Link Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Matthew G Wiggans; Golnaz Shahtahmassebi; Somaiah Aroori; Matthew J Bowles; David A Stell Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Zeta Chow; Patrick Osterhaus; Bin Huang; Quan Chen; Nancy Schoenberg; Mark Dignan; B Mark Evers; Avinash Bhakta Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 2.192